Skip to main content

Full text of "The Duke Divinity School review [serial]"

See other formats 


THE 

DUKE 
DIVINITY 
SCHOOL 
REVIEW 


1 


r.'^?* 


Winter  1966 


£iii.ij?y^!lflisiiiii 


L-r-t  ff— «-L?  ■  _:   .  at    i-      &„    _  — 


11 


t  w 


,i 


A  Prayer  of  Dedication 

O  teach  us  to  know  Thee  our  God,  and  Jesus  Christ  whom  Thou 
hast  sent;  and  enable  us  to  do  Thy  will  on  earth  as  it  is  done  in 
heaven.  Give  us  to  fear  Thee  and  to  love  Thee,  to  trust  and  delight  in 
Thee,  and  to  cleave  to  Thee  with  full  purpose  of  heart,  that  no  tempta- 
tions may  draw  us  or  drive  us  from  Thee ;  but  that  all  Thy  dispensa- 
tions to  us,  and  Thy  dealings  with  us,  may  be  the  messengers  of  Thy 
love  to  our  souls.  Quicken  us,  O  Lord,  in  our  dullness,  that  we  may 
not  serve  Thee  in  a  lifeless  and  listless  manner,  but  may  abound  in 
Thy  work,  and  be  "fervent  in  spirit,  serving  the  Lord."  And  make 
us  faithful  in  all  our  intercourse  with  our  neighbour,  that  we  may  be 
ready  to  do  good  and  bear  evil;  that  we  may  be  just  and  kind, 
merciful  and  meek,  peaceable  and  patient,  sober  and  temperate, 
humble  and  self-denying,  inoffensive  and  useful  in  the  world ;  that  so 
glorifying  Thee  here,  we  may  be  glorified  with  Thee  in  Thy  heavenly 
kingdom.    Amen. 

From  A  Collection  of  Prayers  for  Families,  by  John  Wesley 
(1744). 


THE 

DUKE 
DIVINITY 
SCHOOL 
REVIEW 


Bicentennial  of 
American  Methodism 


Volume  31  Winter  1966  Number  1 


Contents 


A  Prayer  of  Dedication  hy  John  Wesley Inside  Cover 

Sam's  Creek  Revisited 3 

by  Howard  C.  Wilkinson 

Wesley  and  Antinomianism 10 

by  Earl  P.  Crow,  Jr. 

John  Wesley  and  Jonathan  Edwards 20 

by  Charles  A.  Rogers 

The  Doctrines  in  the  Discipline 39 

by  Frank  Baker 

Frank  Mason  North :  Ecumenical  Statesman 56 

by  Creighton  Lacy 

The  Dean's  Discourse,  by  Robert  E.  Cushman 71 

Focus  on  Faculty,  by  Donald  J.  Welch 75 

Looks  at  Books 77 

(including  The  Reformation  by  Hans  J.  Hillerbrand) 


Published  three  times  a  year  (Winter,  Spring,  Autumn) 
by  The  Divinity  School  of  Duke  University 


Postage  paid  at  Durham,  North  Carolina 


Sam's  Creek  Revisited 

Howard  C.  Wilkinson,  '42 
Chaplain  to  Duke  University 


.  .  .  The  occasion  for  this  sermon*  is  the  celebration  in  this  year, 
1966,  of  the  200th  anniversary  of  the  establishment  of  the  first  Meth- 
odist Church  in  the  United  States.  In  1766  (if  not  earlier)  Robert 
Strawbridge  came  from  Ireland,  organized  a  congregation  of  fifteen 
Methodists,  and  built  them  a  log  church  on  Sam's  Creek,  in  Maryland, 
now  less  than  an  hour's  drive  north  of  the  nation's  capital. 

That,  then,  is  the  occasion.  What  of  the  explanation?  Why,  in 
an  interdenominational  Chapel,  would  we  have  a  sermon  dealing  with 
a  particular  denomination?  Precisely  because  this  Chapel  is  inter- 
denominational, not  non-denominational.  Its  congregation,  its  choir, 
its  ushers,  its  musicians,  ministers,  preachers,  hostesses,  maid  and 
janitor  are  members  of  particular,  denominational  churches.  From 
time  to  time  we  single  out  a  certain  denomination  for  special  atten- 
tion, so  that  all  of  us  might  be  aware  of  the  contribution  which  that 
member  is  making  to  the  whole  body  of  Christ.  For  example,  on 
October  24,  1965,  from  this  pulpit  the  Methodist  Dean  of  the  Duke 
Divinity  School  fired  a  "21-gun"  homiletical  salute  to  the  reforma- 
tion taking  place  now  within  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  And  so 
it  goes. 


But  there  is  exceptional  justification  for  taking  a  look  at  the 
Methodist  Church  on  the  occasion  of  its  second  centennial.  I  think 
of  three  reasons.  The  first  is  that  Mr.  James  B.  Duke,  who  founded 
this  University,  was  himself  a  Methodist,  and  he  credited  the  Meth- 
odist Church  with  giving  him  the  inspiration,  vision  and  encourage- 
ment which  led  to  this  magnificent  deed. 

There  are  many  evidences  of  the  influence  of  Methodism  upon 
Mr.  Duke,  but  let  me  summarize  the  matter  by  quoting  a  portion  of 
an  address  given  by  the  late  Judge  William  R.  Perkins,  the  father  of 
the   present   Chairman   of   the   Duke   Endowment.      Judge    Perkins 

*A  sermon  preached  in  Duke  Chapel  on  January  16,  1966,  and  printed  in 
The  North  Carolina  Christian  Advocate,  February  10,  1966. 


knew  Mr.  Duke  well ;  he  was  the  personal  legal  Counsel  of  Mr. 
Duke,  and  in  this  address,  delivered  four  years  after  Mr.  Duke's 
death,  he  explained  the  motives  and  purposes  which  the  benefactor 
had  in  setting  up  the  Endowment.    Here  are  his  words : 

.  .  .  according  to  Mr.  Duke's  plan  ...  the  objects  of  the  Endowment  may 
be  conveniently  classified  as  religion,  hospitalization  and  education  ...  To 
appreciate  the  provisions  for  religion  one  must  realize  that  Mr.  Duke  was 
a  Methodist  of  the  rural  district  type  and  such  had  been  his  father  and  his 
grandfather  before  him.  And  a  first  rate  type  it  was  and  is.  The  Circuit 
Rider  had  entered  deep  into  the  warp  and  woof  of  their  lives  .  .  .  Mr.  Duke 
often  remarked:  'My  old  daddy  always  said  that  if  he  amounted  to  any- 
thing in  life  it  was  due  to  the  Methodist  circuit  riders,'  to  which  he  [James 
B.  Duke]  invariably  added:  Tf  I  amount  to  anything  in  this  world  I  owe 
it  to  my  daddy  and  the  Methodist  Church.' 

The  second  factor  has  to  do  with  the  financial  support  which  the 
Methodist  Giurch  has  voluntarily  given  to  the  University  through 
the  years.  The  Church  does  not  own  the  University ;  it  is  privately 
owned  by  its  Board  of  Trustees.  The  Church  does  not  control  or 
hold  veto  power  over  the  Duke  administration.  No  bishop,  nor  all 
the  bishops  together ;  no  church  board,  nor  all  the  boards  acting  in 
concert,  can  countermand  the  actions  of  the  President  of  Duke  Uni- 
versity or  the  Board  of  Trustees.  Yet  the  church  which  began  on 
Sam's  Creek  gives  Duke  University  a  substantial  sum  of  money  each 
year  for  faculty  salaries  and  the  erection  of  new  buildings.  The  cur- 
rent rate  of  giving  is  in  excess  of  $200,000  each  year. 

The  third  and  final  reason  for  a  special  look  at  Methodism  here 
has  to  do  with  the  so-called  "Fifth  Decade"  planning.  It  is  no  secret 
that  this  University  is  now  engaged  in  the  greatest  development  pro- 
gram in  its  entire  history  thus  far.  After  years  of  careful  evaluation 
and  projection  by  groups  of  faculty,  administration,  trustees,  students 
and  alumni,  a  goal  was  fixed  and  an  ambitious  campaign  was  launched. 
The  immediate  and  crucial  objective  was  announced  as  the  securing 
of  $102,876,000  from  anyone  and  everyone  in  the  United  States  who 
will  contribute. 

This  was  not  a  campaign  thrust  upon  the  University  by  any 
outside  group.  It  was,  so  to  speak,  an  inside  job.  Something  else 
was  an  "inside  job"  :  the  selection  of  the  men  upon  whom  the  Uni- 
versity would  depend  to  lead  us  to  victory.  Without  any  other  cri- 
terion than  that  of  proven  ability  and  demonstrated  interest  in  Duke 
University,  the  University  itself  selected  six  men  who  would  head  the 
over-all  campaign  and  its  five  sub-divisions.    There  was  no  deliberate 


attempt  to  pick  Methodists.  Yet  five  of  these  six  men  whom  the  Uni- 
versity chose  happen  to  be  Methodist ! 

Therefore,  in  summary,  v^e  beheve  that,  at  Duke,  there  is  special 
justification  for  a  focus  upon  the  2(X)th  anniversary  of  the  Methodist 
Church  in  America,  because  Methodism  played  a  decisive  role  in 
the  University's  founding,  it  continues  to  give  something  more  than 
token  financial  support,  and  most  of  the  key  leaders  in  our  great 
"Fifth  Decade"  campaign  receive  their  spiritual  nourishment  in  the 
Methodist  Church  today. 

What  conclusion  should  we  draw  from  this?  What  does  it  all 
mean?  That  Methodist  students  at  Duke  should  be  given  better 
grades  in  Chemistry  than  Baptist  students?  That  Methodists  should 
be  given  preferred  seats  at  home  basketball  games  ?  That  Methodist 
professors  should  receive  higher  salaries  than  Presbyterians?  That 
Methodist  Fords  should  be  given  better  campus  parking  places  than 
Episcopalian  Cadillacs  ? 

Merely  to  express  these  questions  in  words  is  to  reveal  the  im- 
possibility and  the  undesirability  of  preferential  treatment  of  Meth- 
odism on  this  intentionally  interdenominational  campus.  What,  then, 
should  we  conclude  from  the  fact  that  the  Methodist  Church  has 
played,  and  will  continue  to  play  a  decisive  role  in  the  fortunes  of  the 
University?  The  only  conclusion  which  I  care  to  press  here  is  that 
the  students  and  faculty  who  have  benefited  and  will  benefit  so  largely 
from  the  influence  of  American  Methodism  should  take  a  bit  of  time 
to  become  knowledgeable  about  that  church.  I  suggest  that  enough 
time  be  spent  in  study  that  is  free  from  negative  bias,  at  least  to  dispel 
the  worst  mis-conceptions  which  some  people  have  of  Methodism. 
The  actual  shortcomings  and  the  genuine  weaknesses  of  Methodist 
people  and  of  the  Methodist  Church  are  bad  enough !  They  do  not 
need  to  be  made  to  appear  worse  than  they  are  by  distortion  and  out- 
right fabrication. 

II 

Let  me  briefly  indicate,  therefore,  a  few  areas  in  which  American 
Methodism  has  made  distinct  contributions. 

The  first  characteristic  which  I  shall  mention  is  Methodism's  in- 
terest in  education,  including  higher  education.  John  Wesley  once 
declared,  "The  Methodists  may  be  poor,  but  there  is  no  need  they 
should  be  ignorant."  Francis  Asbury,  the  greatest  leader  of  early 
American  Methodism,  agreed  with  Wesley  on  this  point,  and  he 
began  by  educating  himself  at  great  sacrifice.     Indeed,  he  drafted 


plans  for  a  Methodist  school  only  fourteen  years  after  Strawbridge 
organized  the  first  congregation  on  Sam's  Creek. 

By  the  time  the  American  Alethodists  were  ready  to  hold  their 
first  General  Conference,  Asbury  together  with  Dr.  Thomas  Coke 
(an  Oxford  graduate)  had  already  laid  plans  for  a  college  and  had 
collected  some  money  for  it.  At  the  end  of  the  first  of  these  two 
centuries  it  was  reported  that  American  Methodism  had  founded 
nearly  300  schools  and  colleges.  (Cf.  Paul  N.  Garber,  The  Romance 
of  American  Methodism,  Chap.  8) 

You  may  be  interested  to  know  the  names  of  some  of  today's 
leading  universities  which  owe  their  existence  to  American  Meth- 
odism :  the  University  of  Southern  California,  Vanderbilt  University, 
Syracuse,  Northwestern,  Boston,  Emory,  Duke,  S.  M.  U.,  Wesleyan, 
the  University  of  Denver,  Lawrence  University,  Southwestern  Uni- 
versity, and  a  host  of  other  universities  and  colleges,  some  of  which 
rank  very  high  in  national  ratings. 

Since  the  membership  of  the  Methodist  Church  is  only  about 
five  per  cent  of  the  total  population  of  the  nation,  it  is  easy  to  see 
that  this  denomination  has  provided  a  disproportionately  large  share 
of  the  opportunities  for  higher  education  in  this  country.  But  having 
founded  these  institutions,  and  having  given  them  a  measure  of 
financial  support,  the  Methodist  Church  has  by  and  large  adopted  an 
attitude  of  trust  and  cooperation  toward  them,  and  it  has  not  sought 
to  dictate  their  policies,  leaving  rather  to  the  trustees  and  adminis- 
tration the  complex  decisions  which  must  be  made  from  week  to  week 
and  from  day  to  day.  Indeed,  some  of  the  universities  and  colleges 
which  were  given  birth  by  American  Methodism  now  have  no  ofificial 
kinship  at  all  with  their  parent. 

Ill 

This  is  in  harmony  with  another  distinguishing  characteristic  of 
the  denomination.  I  speak  now  of  a  policy  which  Wesley  described 
by  the  phrase,  "think  and  let  think."  Hard  and  fast  credal  statements 
have  never  been  a  part  of  Methodism,  nor  have  neatly  refined  theolog- 
ical postulations  been  the  basis  of  membership.  The  governing 
principle  has  been,  "think  and  let  think."  I  say  this  has  been  the 
governing  principle,  not  the  unanimous  behavior !  Here  and  there 
one  will  encounter  a  misplaced  Methodist  with  a  barnacled  brain, 
who  is  willing  neither  to  think  nor  to  "let  think."  For  him,  the  very 
thought  of  thinking  is  unthinkable !     In  general,  however,  the  Meth- 


odist  Church  has  allowed  and  encouraged  great  latitude  on  matters 
of  doctrine  and  practice. 

It  is  important  to  remember  at  this  point  that  the  emphasis  is 
upon  tolerance  rather  than  indifference!  The  Methodist  Church 
believes  doctrines  are  extremely  important,  and  that  every  Christian 
should  earnestly  strive  to  know  the  truth  of  God.  But  when  one  has 
a  faith  which  he  cherishes  more  than  life  itself,  he  is  in  the  best  posi- 
tion to  understand  how  much  another  man's  beliefs  can  mean  to  him, 
and  therefore  he  can  be  tolerant. 

Methodism  insists  that  all  its  ministers  be  thoroughly  grounded 
in  biblical  studies,  in  theology,  and  in  the  application  of  the  Bible 
and  theology  to  the  secular  life  of  man.  Some  of  the  nation's  most 
outstanding  theologians  and  Bible  scholars  are  Methodists.  .  .  . 

IV 

A  third  characteristic  of  American  Methodism  is  its  historic 
insistence  that  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ  has  inescapable  implications 
for  the  social  relations  of  mankind.  Private  piety  is  necessary,  but 
by  itself  is  not  enough.  No  area  of  secular  life  has  been  exempt  from 
the  scrutiny  and  interference  of  some  Methodist  bishop  or  board. 
Often  these  activities  have  encountered  their  strongest  opposition 
from  within  the  denomination  itself,  but  the  Church  has  forged 
ahead. 

A  Methodist  bishop  marches  from  Selma  to  Montgomery.  A 
group  of  Methodist  churches  unite  with  Baptists  to  throw  whisky 
stores  out  of  a  county.  A  Methodist  preacher  is  using  his  pulpit  to 
expose  rampant  corruption  in  the  local  city  government.  Another 
Methodist  preacher  is  threatened  with  contempt  of  court  proceedings 
because  he  criticized  a  judge  for  his  persistent  refusal  to  sentence 
proven  racketeers.  A  Methodist  missionary  is  ejected  from  an 
African  colonial  post  because  he  declared  that  colonial  exploitation 
should  give  way  to  democracy,  that  there  should  not  be  taxation 
without  representation. 

Not  all  Methodists  have  agreed  on  any  one  social  application  of 
the  Gospel,  but  there  is  practically  unanimous  agreement  on  the  one 
theme  which  runs  through  all  these  activities :  the  insistence  that 
God  cannot  be  shut  up  inside  the  walls  of  the  church,  and  that  His 
will  touches  all  of  life.  Because  of  this  emphasis,  Methodists  have 
sometimes  been  accused  of  being  activists  and  do-gooders.  They  have 
been  charged  with  leaving  off  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  in  favor  of 
meddling  in  matters  which  were  none  of  their  business. 


8 

Only  God  knows  for  certain  whether  some  of  these  accusations 
have  been  partially  true.  But  Methodism  has  always  felt  that  any 
preaching  which  ignores  the  secular  is  not  a  preaching  of  the  Christian 
Gospel.  It  has  contended  that  it  must,  in  God's  name,  get  involved 
wherever  human  needs  are  at  stake.  It  has  been  willing  to  experi- 
ment, to  try  and  fail,  to  try  again  another  way.  The  Methodist  mis- 
sionary program  experimented  with  short-term  missionary  projects, 
and  the  pattern  was  later  borrowed  by  the  Peace  Corps.  The 
Methodist  Church  tried  financing  an  interdenominational  chaplaincy 
in  the  Duke  Hospital,  and  this  idea  is  catching  on.  The  Church's 
Division  of  Higher  Education  gave  Duke  a  $25,000  grant  to  support 
some  Latin  American  ventures.  Project  Nicaragua  has  been  partially 
supported  by  that  grant.  The  point  is  that  the  denomination  is 
willing  to  experiment,  to  try  new  ways  to  make  the  love  of  God  real 
in  His  world.  It  may  fail.  It  may  be  criticized.  But  it  will  keep 
trying. 

V 

Last,  but  certainly  not  least,  American  Methodism  has  been 
characterized  by  an  emphasis  upon  the  importance  of  every  person's 
having  a  vital  relationship  to  the  living  God.  Nothing  will  take  the 
place  of  that.  Methodists  have  taught  that  correctness  of  form  in 
public  worship  is  an  unacceptable  substitute.  Methodists  have  insisted 
that  orthodoxy  of  creed  and  intellectual  belief  is  not  an  acceptable 
alternative  to  a  personal  relationship  with  a  personal  God.  There- 
fore the  great  thrust  of  Methodist  witness  has  been  in  a  different 
direction  from  Deism,  formalism,  institutionalism  and  coldness  in  re- 
ligion. The  representative  Methodist  from  the  beginning  at  Sam's 
Creek  has  had  a  warm-hearted  religious  faith  which  proclaims  God 
as  Father  and  Jesus  Christ  as  the  living  Lord.  The  God-is-dead 
churchmen  have  not  found  fertile  soil  in  Methodist  vineyards. 

Dr.  J.  Robert  Nelson,  a  distinguished  Methodist  theologian,  who 
formerly  was  Director  of  the  Wesley  Foundation  at  Chapel  Hill, 
represented  most  Methodists  in  an  article  he  recently  published  in 
The  Christian  Century.  He  noted  that  the  three  professors  who  are 
conducting  a  prolonged  funeral  of  God  profess  an  attraction  to  Jesus, 
yet  their  descriptions  of  Jesus  are  conflicting  and  largely  fanciful.  He 
declares,  "...  none  is  the  real  Jesus  of  biblical  witness  and  Christian 
faith.  Apart  from  the  living  God  whom  Jesus  called  'Father'  and 
whom  He  represents  in  person,  word  and  deed,  there  is  just  no  real 


Jesus  Christ  who  can  be  known  or  addressed  by  a  faith  properly 
called  Christian."  {Christian  Century,  November  17,  1965) 

This  living  God,  through  Jesus  Christ,  beckons  all  men  to  draw 
near  to  Him.  He  does  not  compel  them  to  come,  and  some  do  not. 
Methodist  theology  has  held  that  some  men  will  not  be  saved,  ex- 
clusively because  they  decline  to  accept  the  free  gift  of  grace  which 
God  ofifered  them  through  His  Son.  And  it  has  held  that  some  men 
will  be  saved,  exclusively  because  they  accept  the  free  gift  of  grace. 

Methodists  almost  unanimously  have  rejected  the  un-biblical  nar- 
cotic that  all  will  be  saved,  regardless.  Methodist  preachers  and 
teachers  have  taught  that  nobody  is  going  to  be  forcibly  dragged  into 
the  Kingdom  of  God,  while  kicking  and  screaming  in  rebellion  against 
it.  All  may  come ;  none  will  be  compelled ;  none  is  predestined  either 
to  salvation  or  to  perdition,  but  anyone  who  chooses  the  salvation 
freely  offered  in  Jesus  Christ  will  be  accepted. 

For  the  past  200  years  one  of  the  favorite  texts  for  sermons  in 
Methodist  pulpits  across  America  has  been  this  one : 

"I  will  give  unto  him  that  is  athirst  of  the  fountain  of  the  water  of 
life  freely  .  .  .  And  let  him  that  is  athirst  come.  And  whosoever  will, 
let  him  take  the  water  of  life  freely."    (Revelation  21 :6;  22:17) 


Wesley  and  Antinomianism 

Earl  P.  Crow,  Jr.,  '57 
Department  of  Religion,  High  Point  College 

Theology,  as  the  language  of  God,  is  an  absolute  and  uncondi- 
tioned revelation  of  reality;  but  as  the  language  of  man,  it  is  a  rela- 
tive and  conditioned  proclamation  of  faith.  It  is  axiomatic  that  a 
theologian  cannot  be  properly  understood  in  abstract,  apart  from  the 
influences  which  constitute  his  environment.  This  maxim  is  par- 
ticularly applicable  to  John  Wesley,  who  was  a  pragmatic  evangelist 
rather  than  a  systematic  dogmatician,  and  whose  theology  was  formed 
within  the  context  of  controversy.  The  thesis  of  this  paper  is  that 
the  fear  of  Antinomianism  so  dominated  Wesley's  thought  and  con- 
ditioned his  theology  that  he  rejected  the  Reformation  theology  of 
Luther,  as  manifested  in  Count  Zinzendorf's  Moravians,  and  of 
Calvin,  as  disclosed  in  the  contemporary  Calvinists,  and  adopted  the 
theological  position  of  the  via  media,  of  the  more  catholic  Church  of 
England. 

Anglo-Catholic  theology  had  no  one  final  authority  such  as  Luther, 
Calvin,  or  the  Council  of  Trent,  but  it  did  possess  an  underlying  con- 
sistency which  may  be  described  as  the  via  media.  Henry  VHI 
rebelled  against  Rome's  refusal  to  grant  an  annulment  of  his  marriage 
to  Catherine  of  Aragon;  nevertheless,  he  remained  a  confirmed 
Catholic.  But  the  influence  of  the  theology  from  Geneva  precipitated 
the  emergence  of  an  anti-episcopal  party  within  Anglicanism.  Thus, 
the  Church  of  England  took  the  middle  road  between  these  two 
continental  influences,  between  Roman  Catholicism  and  the  Puritani- 
cal Reformers ;  and  the  via  media  became  the  essential  factor  of  con- 
tinuity in  the  Church's  theology. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England  received  its  classical  ex- 
position in  George  Bull's  Harmonia  Apostolica  of  1699,  but  the 
foundation  of  Anglo-Catholic  theology  was  laid  in  the  preceding 
century  by  Richard  Hooker. 

In  combating  the  disparagement  of  reason  and  the  doctrine  of 
election  prevalent  in  contemporary  Augustinianism  and  Puritanism, 
Hooker  inclined  toward  Catholicism,  imbibing  the  Aristotelian 
philosophy  which  recognized  the  efficacy  of  secondary  causes.  Al- 
though he  grounded  justification  entirely  upon  Christ's  meritorious 


11 

atonement  received  by  faith,  he  contended  that  good  works  are  in- 
dispensable to  sanctification,  so  that  "unless  we  work,  we  have  it 
not".i 

Strong  anti-Calvinist  sentiments  were  also  expressed  by  Richard 
Montague,  who,  in  a  reply  to  Matthew  Kellison's  A  Gag  for  the 
New  Gospel,  published  A^o,  A  Nezv  Gag  for  an  Old  Goose,  in  which 
he  denied  the  foreign  reformed  churches  to  be  a  part  of  the  Catholic 
Church.  He  received  the  protection  of  James  I  and  in  1625  published 
Appello  Caesarem,  repudiating  both  Romanism  and  Calvinism.  In 
1633,  during  the  reign  of  Charles  I,  William  Laud,  a  High  Church 
Anglican,  succeeded  the  Calvinist  Primate,  Abbot,  as  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury  and,  like  Lancelot  Andrews  at  Cambridge,  sought  to 
purge  Oxford  of  Calvinism.  Laud  was  educated  in  the  Aristotelian 
tradition  of  the  Schoolmen  and,  in  1604,  wrote  a  refutation  of 
Calvinism  for  his  B.D.  thesis.  In  his  1639  Conference  With 
Fisher  he  followed  Hooker,  endeavoring  to  show  the  Church  of 
England  midway  between  the  continental  Reformers  and  Roman 
Catholicism.  In  1661,  the  Bishop  of  London,  Gilbert  Sheldon,  pre- 
sided over  the  revision  of  the  Prayer  Book  at  Savoy.  The  Puritan 
Party  was  led  by  Richard  Baxter,  but  his  influence  was  minimal 
against  John  Cosin,  Robert  Sanderman,  William  Sancroft,  Matthew 
Wren,  and  Peter  Gunning;  and  the  new  Prayer  Book  of  1662  secured 
the  Laudian  position  against  Puritanism. 

During  the  pre-Wesleyan  days  of  the  seventeenth  century,  the 
doctrine  of  the  via  media  received  additional  support  from  such 
eminent  divines  as  James  Ussher,  Henry  Hammond,  John  Pearson, 
and  Jeremy  Taylor,  who  in  his  Holy  Living  and  Holy  Dying  of  1651 
defined  justifying  faith  as  "faith  keeping  the  commandments  of  God." 

Ralph  Cudworth,  Master  of  Christ's  College,  Cambridge,  con- 
tended that  man  is  Christian  only  in  so  far  as  he  readily  complies  with 
Christ's  commandments.  Isaac  Barrow,  chaplain  to  Charles  II,  in 
A  Treatise  on  the  Pope's  Supremacy  (1680),  attacked  the  mal- 
practices of  popes  and  condemned  the  scholasticism  of  the  Council  of 
Trent ;  yet,  in  his  sermon,  "The  Doctrine  of  Universal  Redemption 
Asserted  and  Explained",  he  was  strongly  anti-Calvinist.  William 
Beveridge,  whose  Thoughts  on  Religion  Wesley  included  in  his 
Christian  Library,  sought  to  combine  the  indispensability  of  holiness 
and  good  works  with  salvation  through  the  merit  of  Christ  alone. 

But  it  was  Bishop  George  Bull  of  St.  David's  who  gave  Anglo- 

1.  The  Works  of  Richard  Hooker,  Ed.  by  John  Gauden  (London :  Printed  by 
J.  Best,  1662),  pp.  242-45. 


12 

Catholic  theology  its  classical  exposition.  Having  encountered  con- 
siderable Antinomianism  in  his  first  parish  (St.  George's  near 
Bristol)  in  1699,  he  published  his  Harmonia  Apostolica,  endeavoring 
to  establish  a  balanced  relationship  between  faith  and  works  and  to 
reconcile  the  soteriological  sentiments  of  St.  Paul  and  St.  James. 
His  theology  of  the  via  media  was  characteristic  of  the  position  of 
the  Church  of  England  at  the  beginning  of  the  eighteenth  century 
and  of  the  theological  atmosphere  in  which  Wesley  was  nurtured. 

It  would  be  difficult  to  avoid,  or  to  exaggerate,  the  impression 
made  upon  Wesley  by  his  parents,  who  were  both  competent  theo- 
logians and  converts  to  the  Establishment.  Samuel  Wesley,  in  1693, 
while  writing  A  Letter  Concerning  the  Education  of  the  Dissenters 
in  Their  Private  Academies,  was  convinced  of  the  error  of  his  own 
position  and  that  same  year  joined  the  Church  of  England.  Tyerman 
described  Samuel  Wesley  as  "a  moderate  Arminian."  His  own 
writings  reveal  him  as  a  rather  severe  anti-Calvinist,  renouncing  the 
doctrine  of  Absolute  Predestination  and  asserting  man's  freedom  and 
capability,  through  Divine  grace,  to  keep  the  commandments  of 
God.  So  profound  was  the  influence  of  the  father  upon  the  son  that 
John  Wesley  continually  sought  his  counsel  upon  matters  of  import, 
and,  although  their  mode  of  expression  sometimes  differed,  their 
theology  was  substantially  the  same. 

Wesley's  mother,  Susannah,  also  had  Dissenting  parents,  but 
later  in  life,  after  examining  for  herself  the  controversy  between 
Establishment  and  Nonconformity,  she,  like  Samuel,  joined  the 
Church  of  England.  It  was  she  who  educated  the  children,  and  her 
tuition  encompassed  not  only  secular  subjects,  but  instruction  in  the 
scriptures  and  the  collects  and  catechism  of  the  Church.  The  stress 
which  John  Wesley  later  placed  upon  holiness  can  be  traced  directly 
to  Susannah ;  for,  although  she  distinguished  between  mere  outward 
morality  and  inward  Christian  obedience,  she  taught  her  children  that 
they  could  be  saved  only  "by  universal  obedience,  by  keeping  all  the 
commandments  of  God".^  Her  contribution  to  the  thought  of  her  son 
John  can  readily  be  traced  through  their  correspondence.  Thus, 
Wesley  was  born  of  Anglican  parents,  confirmed  in  the  Anglican 
Church,  and  all  his  life  adhered  to  the  theology  of  Anglicanism. 

But  Wesley  was  continually  encountering  Reformed  doctrine,  and 
had  it  not  been  for  his  fear  of  Antinomianism  it  is  conceivable  that  he 
might  have  assumed  a  theological  posture  closer  to  the  Reformers 

2.  The   Works  of  John   Wesley,   Authorized   Edition,    (London:    Wesleyan 
Conference  Office,  1872),  I,  98. 


13 

than  he  did.  Following  his  flirtation  with,  and  rejection  of,  the 
mystical  writers,  including  his  valued  friend,  William  Law,  Wesley- 
was  momentarily  convinced  of  the  truth  as  expounded  by  a  group 
of  missionary  Moravians. 

When  reform  erupted  in  Saxony,  the  Moravian  Brethren,  already 
a  constituted  Protestant  body,  sent  messengers  to  assure  Luther  of 
their  sympathy  and  support ;  and,  when  religious  persecution  forced 
them  to  leave  their  native  Moravia,  they  found  refuge  on  the  estate 
of  the  German  Lutheran  Count  Nicholas  Ludwig  von  Zinzendorf. 
Their  theology  was  basically  Lutheran. 

Wesley  first  encountered  the  Brethren  during  his  journey  to 
Georgia,  and  later,  under  the  guidance  of  Peter  Boehler,  came  to  his 
"heart  warming"  experience.  While  visiting  the  Brethren  in  Ger- 
many, during  the  summer  of  1738,  Wesley  recorded  that  he  had 
encountered  "living  proofs  of  the  power  of  faith ;  persons  saved  from 
inward  as  well  as  outward  sin,"^  but,  according  to  his  friend,  James 
Hutton,  his  visit  with  the  Pietist  leader  Augustus  Francke,  plus  the 
fact  that  he  had  been  barred  from  the  Brethren's  Communion,  had 
dulled  his  enthusiasm  for  the  Germans  even  before  this  return  to 
England.^  When  in  1739  the  preaching  of  Philip  Henry  Molther 
aroused  the  antinomian  controversy  at  the  Fetter  Lane  Society, 
Wesley's  reaction  was  decisive.  He  condemned  the  tendency  toward 
mystical  quietism,  describing  this  "grand  delusion"  as  "an  enthusiastic 
doctrine  of  devils",  and  exhorted  his  followers  to  participate  in  the 
ordinances  of  Christ  and  practice  the  performance  of  good  works. '^ 

It  is  extremely  doubtful  that  Molther  ever  held  the  views  imputed 
to  him  by  Wesley.  His  background  as  the  son  of  a  Lutheran 
minister,  his  education  at  the  University  of  Jena,  the  fact  that  he  was 
a  tutor  to  Count  Zinzendorf's  son,  his  continued  service  to  the 
Moravian  Church,  his  election  as  a  Bishop  of  the  Church  in  1775,  his 
private  letters  and  his  hymns,  the  fact  that  he  claimed  to  have 
received  the  full  assurance  of  faith  while  partaking  of  the  sacrament, 
the  testimony  of  Peter  Boehler  on  his  behalf,  and  the  opinion  of 
Charles  Wesley  that  Molther  had  been  misunderstood,  all  absolve  him 
of  Wesley's  charges. 

The  controversy  has  traditionally  been  explained  by  Moravians 
in  terms  of  Wesley's  jealousy  of  Molther  and  by  Methodists  in  terms 
of  Moravian  Antinomianism,  but  the  problem  was  far  too  complicated 

3.  Ibid.,  I,  110. 

4.  Moravian   Church   House,   London,   MS:    The   History   of   the   Renewed 
Brcthcni's  Church,  II,  649. 

5.  Wesley,  Works,  I,  275. 


14 

to  be  resolved  in  such  elementary  conclusions.  The  conflict  between 
Wesley  and  Molther  paralleled  that  which  existed  between  the 
Moravian  Brethren  and  German  Pietists,  involving  two  divergent 
views  of  righteousness.  The  Brethren  inclined  toward  Luther  and 
contended  for  the  concept  of  Christ's  imputed  righteousness,  whereas 
Wesley  followed  Pietism  in  maintaining  the  necessity  of  a  personal, 
inherent  righteousness. 

The  doctrine  of  imputed  righteousness  had  its  foundation  in  the 
Lutheran  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  alone ;  and,  according  to 
Hutton,  Wesley  accused  the  Brethren  of  following  Luther  without 
discrimination,  dwelling  exclusively  upon  the  doctrine  of  faith  and 
neglecting  the  Law  and  zeal  for  sanctification.*'  It  is  revealing  that 
although  Wesley  included  The  Life  of  John  Calvin,  The  Life  of 
Philip  Melanchthon,  and  The  History  of  Martin  Luther  in  his 
Christian  Library,  he  regarded  none  of  the  Reformers'  works  highly 
enough  to  include  them.  In  fact,  Wesley  was  quite  critical  of  Luther, 
describing  him  as  "shallow",  "confused",  and  blasphemously  anti- 
nomian."^ 

The  intercourse  between  the  Moravians  and  Methodists  was 
terminated  in  September  of  1741,  when  Wesley  met  with  Count 
Zinzendorf  and,  having  discussed  the  notions  of  imputed  and  inherent 
righteousness,  was  fully  persuaded  that  Zinzendorf  was  antinomian. 
Wesley  held  tenaciously  to  the  tenet  of  personal  righteousness.  He 
wrote : 

The  righteousness  of  Christ  is  doubtless  necessary  for  every  soul  that 
enters  glory;  but  so  is  personal  holiness  too,  for  every  child  of  man  .  .  . 
The  former  is  necessary  to  entitle  us  to  heaven;  the  latter  to  qualify  us 
for  it.8 

Wesley's  relationship  with  the  Brethren  afiforded  an  important 
link  with  Lutheran  thought,  but  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  justification 
by  faith  alone,  as  it  found  expression  in  the  Moravian  emphasis  upon 
imputed  righteousness,  offended  Wesley's  sense  of  the  indispensa- 
bility  of  good  works  and  gave  rise  to  an  amplified  affirmation  of  the 
Law  of  God. 

Wesley's  association  and  controversy  with  the  Moravians  also 
formed  the  background  for  his  subsequent  conflict  with  Calvinism, 
for  the  notion  of  imputed  righteousness,  which   Wesley  considered 

6.  David  Benham,  Memoirs  of  James  Hutton   (London :  Hamilton,  Adams, 
and  Co.,  1856),  p.  54.  Taken  from  "Hutton's  Account  of  the  Fetter  Lane  Break". 

7.  Wesley,  Works,  I,  315-16. 

8.  Ibid.,  VII,  314. 


15 

antiiiomian,  was  accentuated  by  the  Calvinistic  doctrines  of  Predesti- 
nation, Election,  and  Reprobation.  The  Calvinist  contest  continued 
over  some  thirty-five  or  forty  years,  during  which  time  Wesley  broke 
with  his  friends,  George  Whitefield,  William  Seward,  John  Cennick, 
Joseph  Humphreys,  and  Howell  Harris.  The  Minutes  of  the  Meth- 
odist Conference  of  1770  stated: 

We  have  received  it  as  a  maxim,  that  a  man  is  to  do  nothing  in  order 
to  justification:  Nothing  can  be  more  false.  Whoever  desires  to  find  favor 
with  God,  should  cease  from  evil,  and  learn  to  do  well :  Whoever  repents, 
should  do  works  meet  for  repentance,  and  if  this  is  not  in  order  to  find 
favor,  what  does  he  do  them  for  ?  Who  of  us  is  now  accepted  of  God  ?  He 
that  now  believes  in  Christ  with  a  loving,  obedient  heart.  But  who  among 
those  who  never  heard  of  Christ?  He  that,  according  to  the  light  he 
has,  feareth  God  and  worketh  righteousness.  Is  not  this  salvation  by 
works?  Not  by  the  merit  of  works,  but  by  works  as  a  condition.  As  to 
merit  itself,  of  which  we  have  been  so  dreadfully  afraid :  We  are  rewarded 
according  to  our  works.  .  .  .Does  not  talking  of  a  justified  or  sanctified 
state  tend  to  mislead  men  ?  Almost  naturally  leading  them  to  trust  in  what 
was  done  in  one  moment  ?  Whereas  we  are  every  hour  and  every  moment, 
pleasing  or  displeasing  God,  according  to  our  works;  .  .  .^ 

The  appearance  of  these  doctrinal  propositions  incited  a  turbulent 
reaction  among  the  contemporary  theologians,  particularly  those  in 
connection  with  the  Countess  of  Huntingdon.  A  literary  deluge 
followed  as  'Calvinistic'  and  'Arminian'  Methodists  joined  in  con- 
troversy. The  Calvinist  clan  was  led  by  John  Berridge,  Richard  and 
Rowland  Hill,  and  Augustus  Toplady ;  and  their  opposition  con- 
sisted mainly  of  Wesley,  Thomas  Olivers,  and  John  Fletcher.  From 
Fletcher's  prolific  pen  came  the  well-known  Checks  to  Antinomian- 
ism,  in  which  he  attempted  to  vindicate  the  1770  Minutes  against 
the  Calvinistic  charges  of  Pelagianism  and  justification  by  works. 
His  thought  culminated  in  his  An  Equal  Check  to  Pharisaism  and 
Antinomianism,  a  work  consisting  of  three  essays  entitled:  first, 
"An  Historical  Essay  Upon  the  Importance  and  Harmony  of  the  Two 
Gospel  Precepts,  Believe  and  Obey,  and  Upon  the  Fatal  Consequences 
Which  Flow  From  Parting  Faith  and  Works" ;  second,  "A  Scriptural 
Essay  on  the  Astonishing  Rewardableness  of  Works  According  to 
the  Covenant  of  Grace" ;  and  third,  "An  Essay  on  Truth,  Being  a 
Rational  Vindication  of  the  Doctrine  of  Salvation  by  Faith."  Fletch- 
er's aim  was  the  same  as  Bull's  some  seventy-five  years  before  . 
to  establish  a  harmony  between  faith  and  works,  to  proclaim  justifica- 

9.  Minutes  of  the  Methodist  Conferences  1744-1798.     (London:   Printed  by 
Thomas  Cordeux,  1812).    I,  96-97. 


16 

tion  by  faith,  and  at  the  same  time,  preserve  the  indispensability  of 
good  works. 

Wesley's  prime  concern  in  his  conflict  with  Calvinism  appears  to 
have  been  to  sustain  the  concept  of  man's  freedom ;  and,  in  his  1774 
Thoughts  Upon  Necessity,  he  charged  that  Necessarianism  neutra- 
lized any  distinction  between  good  and  evil.  He  insisted  upon  man's 
moral  responsibility  and  maintained  that  in  order  to  preserve  this 
responsibility  man  must  be  free.  Unlike  the  continental  Reformers, 
he  was  unable  to  reconcile  the  imputation  ol  original  sin  and  moral 
impotence  with  the  justice  of  God;  and,  being  persuaded  that  the 
condemnation  of  all  men  for  Adam's  sin  impugned  both  the  justice 
and  mercy  of  God,  he,  like  Ussher  and  Cudworth,  asserted  that 
through  the  atoning  work  of  Christ  preventing  grace  is  communi- 
cated to  all  men  for  the  recovery  of  that  which  they  lost  in  the 
Adamic  fall.  Thus,  Wesley  felt  that  God's  prevenient  grace  affords 
man  freedom  as  well  as  acquitting  him  of  Adam's  transgression.  He 
carefully  avoided  Pelagianism  by  renouncing  natural  free  will  and 
insisting  that  the  freedom  which  man  possesses  "is  a  measure  of 
freedom  supernaturally  restored". ^°  Nevertheless,  it  may  be  noted 
that  the  universal  nature  of  prevenient  grace,  in  Wesley's  thought, 
produced  a  practical  effect  in  man's  potentialities  which  is  identical 
with  Pelagianism. 

In  opposing  Antinomianism,  Wesley  preached  a  two-fold  concept 
of  justification,  comprised  of  initial  acceptance  and  final  salvation. 
He  described  initial  justification  as  restoration  to  the  favor  of  God 
and  asserted  its  sole  meritorious  cause  to  be  the  death  and  righteous- 
ness of  Christ ;  yet,  like  Hooker,  he  acknowledged  the  efficacy  of 
secondary  causes  and  affirmed  that  justification,  although  merited 
solely  by  Christ,  is  conditional.  He  declared  the  sole  condition  of 
initial  justification  to  be  faith,  and  accepted  the  Church  of  England's 
definition  of  saving  faith  as  "a  sure  trust  and  confidence,  which  a 
man  hath  in  God,  that  through  the  merits  of  Christ  his  sins  are  for- 
given, and  he  is  reconciled  to  the  favor  of  God." 

But  Wesley's  experience  with  the  antinomian  stillness  at  the 
Fetter  Lane  Society  led  him  to  concede  that  repentance  and  works 
of  repentance  are  also  necessarily  antecedent  to  justifying  faith.  He 
refused  to  term  works  of  repentance  a  condition  of  justification,  in- 
sisting that  since  they  do  not  spring  from  faith  they  cannot  properly 
be  termed  good  works.  Rather,  he  interpreted  repentance  and  works 
of  repentance  as  conditionally  necessary  to  justification,  to  be  per- 

10.  Wesley,  Works,  X,  229-30;  XII,  453. 


17 

formed  according  to  time  and  opportunity.  Wesley's  almost  scholastic 
concern  with  the  relationship  between  repentance  and  faith  is  reminis- 
cent of  the  sixteenth-century  controversy  involving  Melanchthon, 
Agricola,  and  Luther,  in  which  Luther  attempting  to  effect  a  com- 
promise allowed  repentance  to  be  antecedent  to  justifying  faith,  but 
insisted  that  it  is  founded  upon  a  prior  general  faith.  In  direct  con- 
trast with  Wesley,  Calvin  interpreted  repentance  as  an  actual  turning 
to  God  by  faith  and  concluded  that  faith  is  antecedent  to,  and  the 
ground  of,  repentance.  Calvin  regarded  man  as  justified  literally  by 
faith  alone,  with  repentance  and  works  of  repentance  flowing  from 
faith.  Wesley,  although  he  employed  the  term  justification  liy  faith 
alone,  insisted  that  repentance  and  works  of  repentance,  where  there 
is  time  and  opportunity,  necessarily  precede  faith,  thereby  consti- 
tuting faith  dependent  upon  repentance.  It  must  follow,  therefore, 
for  Wesley,  that  justification  is  conditioned  upon  repentance  and 
faith,  and  works  of  repentance  where  there  is  opportunity,  and  that 
by  the  term  justification  by  faith  alone,  he  merely  implied  "that 
without  faith  we  cannot  be  justified"  and  "as  soon  as  anyone  has 
true  faith,  in  that  moment,"  since  repentance  has  necessarily  preceded 
faith,  "he  is  justified".^^ 

Wesley's  grand  protest  against  Antinomianism  at  the  1770  Meth- 
odist Conference  manifested  a  more  radical  interpretation  of  the 
necessity  of  good  works  for  initial  justification.  He  expressed  his 
doubt  that  God  ever  justified  anyone  who  "neither  feared  God  nor 
wrought  righteousness,"  and  explicitly  asserted  that  "whoever  desires 
to  find  favor  with  God,  should  cease  from  evil,  and  learn  to  do  well" 
and  that  "whoever  repents,  should  do  works  meet  for  repentance  .  .  . 
in  order  to  find  favor".^^ 

In  the  1770  Minutes  Wesley  also  affirmed  that  those  who  were 
ignorant  of  Christ  would  be  justified  by  fearing  God  and  performing 
works  of  righteousness  according  to  the  grace  they  were  granted. 
This  concept  of  salvation  through  "sincere  obedience",  which  Wesley 
first  learned  from  William  Law's  Serious  Call,  was  expressed  by  the 
Anglican  Ralph  Cudworth  and  was  integral  to  Fletcher's  doctrine  of 
dispensations  in  his  Checks  to  Antinomianism.  Wesley  extended  this 
principle  to  the  point  of  renouncing  the  doctrine  of  justification  by 
faith  to  be  "the  grand  doctrine  by  which  the  Church  stands  or  falls," 
and  declaring  it  to  be  time  to  "lay  aside  big  words  which  have  no 
determinate  meaning"  and  "return  to  the  plain  word,  he  that  feareth 

11.  Ibid,  VIII,  47. 

12.  Minutes  of  Methodist  Conference,  1770. 


18 

God,  and  worketh  righteousness  is  accepted.  .  .  "}^  Wesley's  fear 
of  Antinomianism  was  manifested  in  the  Minutes  by  his  reluctance 
to  speak  of  a  justified  state,  and  apparently  he  ceased  preaching 
justification  by  faith  as  a  converting  doctrine,  for  on  March  23,  1777, 
he  recorded : 

I  preached  at  St.  Ewin's  Church,  but  not  upon  justification  by  faith.  I  do 
not  find  this  to  be  a  profitable  subject  to  an  unawakened  congregation.^^ 

The  doctrine  of  a  second  justification  was  a  manifestation  of 
Wesley's  fear  that  speaking  of  a  justified  state  might  lead  men  to  an 
antinomian  trust  in  what  was  done  in  one  moment.  He  repudiated 
the  Calvinistic  concepts  of  finished  salvation  and  infallible  perse- 
verance and  asserted  that  in  order  to  attain  final  salvation  man  must 
achieve  perfection  or  sanctification  (the  words  are  virtually  inter- 
changeable in  Wesleyan  usage).  This  sanctification  Wesley  affirmed 
to  be  conditioned  upon  faith,  both  for  its  commencement  and  for  its 
sustenance;  yet,  he  maintained  "words  of  piety"  and  "words  of 
mercy"  to  be  indispensable.^^  Thus,  although  he  founded  initial 
justification  upon  "such  a  faith  as,  working  by  love,  produces  all 
obedience  and  holiness",  preceded  by  repentance  and  works  of  repent- 
ance where  there  is  time  and  opportunity,  he  grounded  second  justi- 
fication, or  final  salvation,  upon  both  faith  and  works.  The  Methodist 
Conference  of  1744  established  the  necessity  of  good  works  for  second 
justification,  as  did  the  Minutes  of  1770.  In  his  Remarks  on  Hill's 
Farrago  Double  Distilled.  Wesley  stated  that  "final  salvation  is  by 
works  as  a  condition",  and  in  A  Farther  Appeal  he  wrote : 

With  regard  to  the  condition  of  salvation,  it  may  be  remembered  that  I 
allow,  not  only  faith,  but  likewise  holiness  or  universal  obedience  to  be 
the  ordinary  condition  of  final  salvation.  .  .^^ 

John  Wesley  was  indeed  an  Anglican,  in  the  tradition  of  Hooker, 
Ussher,  Laud,  and  Bull.  The  ultimate  concern  which  is  evident 
throughout  the  maze  of  Wesleyan  refinements  upon  justification  and 
sanctification  is  the  desire  to  maintain  the  absolute  necessity  of  in- 
herent righteousness  and  holiness  within  the  context  of  salvation  by 
faith.  Adopting  the  theology  he  had  learned  from  his  parents,  Wesley 
rejected  as  antinomian  the  notion  of  imputed  righteousness  prominent 
in  both  the  Moravians  and  Calvinists,  and  endeavored  to  motivate 

13.  Wesley,  Works,  III,  308. 

14.  Ibid.,  IV,  95. 

15.  Ibid.,  VI,  51;  VIII,  286. 

16.  Ibid.,  VIII,  68. 


19 

men  to  holiness  by  the  doctrine  of  perfection  enforced  with  the  sanc- 
tions of  reward  and  punishment. 

It  must  be  conckided  that  in  opposition  to  what  he  feared  were 
the  antinomian  tenets  of  Moravianism  and  Calvinism,  Wesley  adopted 
the  theology  of  the  Church  of  England  "as  it  stands  opposite  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  Antinomians,  on  the  one  hand,  and  to  that  of  justi- 
fication by  works  on  the  other."^"  He  rejected  the  Reformation 
theology,  which  represented  justification  as  synonymous  with  final 
salvation  ...  an  act  of  God  performed  once  and  for  all  time,  and 
accepted  the  Anglo-Catholic  zna  media,  which  portrayed  justification 
as  the  point  of  conversion  from  which  man  is  enabled  to  cooperate 
with  God's  grace,  live  righteously,  and  thereby  finally  receive  the  just 
reward  of  salvation.     In  1765  Wesley  wrote: 

God  thrust  us  out  utterly  against  our  will,  to  raise  a  holy  people.  When 
Satan  could  no  otherwise  prevent  this,  he  threw  Calvinism  in  our  way,  and 
then  Antinomianism,  which  struck  at  the  root  of  both  inward  and  outward 
holiness. ^^ 

17.  Ibid.,  VIII,  51. 

18.  Minutes  of  Methodist  Conference,  1765. 


John  Wesley 
and  Jonathan  Edwards 

Charles  A.  Rogers 
Instructor  in  Historical  Theology 

Although  John  Wesley  and  Jonathan  Edwards  were  contempor- 
aries and  both  were  involved  in  great  revival  movements,  they  never 
met  and,  curiously,  never  engaged  in  any  direct  correspondence.  The 
two  men  did  have  knowledge  of  each  other's  work  and  ideas,  how- 
ever, obtained  either  through  the  mediation  of  other  men  or  through 
published  writings.  The  evidence  relating  to  Edwards'  knowledge 
of  Wesley  is  minimal,  but  is,  nevertheless,  sufficient  to  allow  some 
guarded  speculations  as  to  the  nature  of  his  views  regarding  Wesley. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  materials  for  determining  Wesley's  attitude 
towards  Edwards  are  more  extensive,  and  reveal  some  significant 
points  concerning  Wesley's  life  and  thought. 

A  Bibliographical  Survey 

Wesley  was  familiar  with  Edwards'  role  in  the  "Great  Awaken- 
ing" in  New  England,  and  with  much  of  his  written  work.  He  not 
only  read  a  large  number  of  Edwards'  writings,  but  published  in 
abridged  form  no  less  than  five  of  his  major  works.  Included  in  the 
five  abridgements  were  the  four  treatises  comprising  Edwards'  re- 
ports and  reflections  on  the  New  England  revival.  The  first  of 
Edwards'  "revival  treatises"  was  A  Faithful  Narrative  of  the  Sur- 
prising Work  of  God,  written  in  1736,  containing  specific  accounts 
and  descriptions  of  those  "being  wrought  upon"  by  the  Holy  Spirit.^ 
The  final  treatise  was  the  exhaustive  discussion  of  the  nature  and 
marks  of  true  religion  in  A  Treatise  Concerning  Religious  Affections 
(1746).-    Between  the  publication  of  these  treatises,  Edwards  wrote 

1.  Jonathan  Edwards,  A  Faithful  Narrative  of  the  Surprising  Work  of  God 
in  the  Conversion  of  Many  Hundred  Souls  in  Northampton  and  the  Neighboring 
Towns  and  Villages  of  Neiv  Hampshire  in  New  England  (London,  1737).  Here- 
after cited  as  the  Faithful  Narrative. 

2.  Jonathan  Edwards,  A  Treatise  Concerning  Religious  Affections,  edited  by 
John  Smith  (New  Haven,  Yale  University  Press,  1959).  Hereafter  cited  as 
Religious  Affections. 


21 

two  other  works  on  the  revival.  In  1741  there  appeared  The  Dis- 
tinguishing Marks  of  a  Work  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  followed  the 
next  year  by  Some  Thoughts  Concerning  the  Present  Revival  of 
Religion  in  Nezv  England.^  Wesley's  abridgments  of  these  four 
treatises  were  printed  a  collective  total  of  nine  times  during  his  life- 
time.* 

In  addition  to  the  writings  concerning  the  revival,  Wesley  pub- 
lished one  other  major  work  of  Edwards.  This  was  the  biographical 
account  of  David  Brainerd,  missionary  to  the  Housatonnuck  Indians 
in  New  Jersey  and  Edwards'  son-in-law.  The  biography  was  pub- 
lished by  Edwards  in  1749,  after  Brainerd's  premature  death.  It 
consisted  primarily  of  excerpts  taken  from  Brainerd's  papers  and 
journals,  with  some  "Reflections  and  Observations"  by  Edwards  con- 
cerning the  excellency  of  Brainerd's  personal  piety  and  love  of  God.^ 
In  December,  1749,  Wesley  recorded  in  his  Journal, 

On  Saturday  9,  I  read  the  surprising  "Extract  of  Mr.  Brainerd's  Journal." 
Surely  God  hath  once  more  'given  to  the  Gentiles  repentance  unto  life.'® 

Wesley  was  greatly  moved  by  the  quality  of  the  life  and  work  of 
Brainerd,  and  the  memory  of  Brainerd's  exemplary  piety  remained 
with  him  throughout  the  rest  of  his  life.  He  frequently  referred  to 
Brainerd's  life  as  an  appropriate  example  for  all  ministers.  In  the 
minutes  of  the  conversations  between  Wesley  and  his  preachers,  in 
reply  to  the  question,  "What  can  be  done  in  order  to  revive  the  work 
of  God  where  it  is  decayed?",  Wesley  answers,  in  part,  as  follows: 

Let  every  preacher  read  carefully  over  the  "Life  of  David  Brainerd." 
Let  us  be  followers  of  him,  as  he  was  of  Christ,  in  absolute  self-devotion, 
in  total  deadness  to  the  world,  and  in  fervent  love  to  God  and  man.    Let 

3.  Hereafter  cited  as  Distinguishing  Marks  and  Some  Thoughts. 

4.  Wesley  published  the  Faithful  Narrative  in  1744;  the  second  edition  ap- 
peared in  1755;  Distinguishing  Marks  was  also  published  in  1744,  with  a  second 
edition  in  1755.  His  abridgment  of  Some  Thoughts  appeared  in  1745.  All  three 
works  were  subsequently  published  in  Wesley's  Collected  Works  (London,  Wil- 
liam Pine,  1773),  Vol.  17,  pp.  110-385.  The  Extract  from  a  Treatise  Concerning 
Religious  Affections  was  first  published  in  the  Collected  Works,  Vol.  23,  pp.  177- 
279;  the  second  edition  appeared  in  1801  after  Wesley's  death. 

5.  Jonathan  Edwards,  An  Account  of  the  Life  of  the  Late  Reverend  Mr. 
David  Brainerd,  Minister  of  the  Gospel,  Missionary  to  the  Indians,  from  the 
Honourable  Society  in  Scotland,  for  the  Propagation  of  Christian  Knoivledge, 
and  Pastor  of  a  Church  of  Christian  Indians  in  New  Jersey  (Worcester,  1793), 
pp.  311  flf. 

6.  Nehemiah  Curnock  (ed.),  The  Journal  of  the  Rev.  John  Wesley  (London, 
Epworth  Press,  1960),  Vol.  HI,  p.  449.  Hereafter  cited  as  Journal. 


22 

us  but  secure  this  point,  and  the  world  and  the  devil  must  fall  under  our 
feetJ 

Wesley's  abridged  version  of  the  biography  appeared  in  1768  under 
the  title  An  Extract  of  the  Life  of  the  Late  Rev.  Mr.  David  Brainerd, 
Missionary  to  Indians.^ 

These  five  items  complete  the  number  of  Edwardsean  writings 
that  Wesley  abridged  and  published.*^  It  is  clear  that  Wesley  also 
knew  Edwards'  treatise,  Freedom  of  the  Will,  taking  opportunity  to 
respond  to  it  critically  on  two  occasions,  but  he  did  not  publish  an 
abridgment  of  it  due,  as  we  shall  see,  to  reasons  of  theological 
disagreement.^"  We  should  note,  however,  that  Wesley  did  publish 
a  larger  number  of  separate  works  of  Edwards  than  of  any  other  man, 
giving  some  indication  of  the  respect  he  held  for  Edwards,  and 
especially  of  the  value  he  saw  in  Edwards'  works  on  the  revival. ^^ 
This  respect  is  further  exemplified  by  the  fact  that  Wesley  was 
quick  to  suggest  the  including  of  Edwards  in  an  "ecumenical"  prayer 
union,  organized  by  several  ministers  in  Scotland  "to  promote  more 
abundant  application  to  a  duty  that  is  perpetually  binding,  that  our 
Lord's  kingdom  may  come."^-     Edwards  ought  to  be  included  be- 

7.  Thomas  Jackson  (ed.),  The  Works  of  John  Wesley  (Grand  Rapids, 
Zondervan  Publishing  House,  n.d.),  VIII,  p.  328.  Hereafter  cited  as  Works. 
In  spite  of  his  appreciation  of  Brainerd,  Wesley  was  nevertheless  critical  of  what 
he  thought  was  Brainerd's  superior  attitude  about  himself  and  his  work.  C/., 
Journal,  HI,  p.  449. 

8.  Lx)ndon,  1768.  Second  Edition,  London,  1771.  The  Extract  was  also 
published  in  Wesley's  Collected  Works  (London,  William  Pine,  1772),  Vol.  12, 
pp.  27-309,  and  Vol.  13,  pp.  3-36. 

9.  Richard  Green  {The  Works  of  John  and  Charles  Wesley,  London,  1906, 
p.  288),  ascribes  a  sermon  titled  "God  is  Love,"  published  in  abridged  form  in 
the  Arminian  Magazine,  January-July,  1785,  to  Jonathan  Edwards.  The  sermon, 
however,  does  not  appear  in  any  of  Edwards'  published  works,  and  cannot 
be  conclusively  attributed  to  Edwards. 

10.  Jonathan  Edwards,  Freedom  of  the  Will,  edited  by  Paul  Ramsey  (New 
Haven,  Yale  University  Press,  1957).  Hereafter  cited  by  title. 

11.  C"/.,  Frank  Baker,  "The  Beginnings  of  American  Methodism,"  Methodist 
History,  Vol.  II,  #1,  October,  1963,  1-15. 

12.  The  "prayer  concert"  was  initiated  in  October,  1744,  by  the  Rev.  James 
Robe  of  Kilsyth  in  Scotland,  and  soon  gained  support  in  that  country.  Wesley 
learned  of  the  proposal  for  prayer  and  praise  in  March,  1745,  through  a  letter 
from  James  Erskine,  a  friend  of  Mr.  Robe.  Wesley  immediately  suggested  the 
concurrence  of  Edwards  and  Gilbert  Tennant  in  America.  On  August  26,  1746, 
a  memorial  was  sent  to  New  England  requesting  the  people  there  "to  join  in  .  .  . 
this  method  of  united  prayer,  and  in  endeavoring  to  promote  it."  The  text  of  the 
memorial  appears  in  S.  E.  Dwight  (ed.),  The  Works  of  President  Edwards 
(New  York,  1829-30),  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  457-459. 


23 

cause  the  revival  in  New  England,  wrote  Wesley,  "is  evidently  one 
work  with  what  we  have  seen  here."^^ 

It  is  apparent,  therefore,  that  Wesley  held  Edwards  in  high  regard 
and  was  more  than  passingly  familiar  with  his  literary  work.  Further, 
in  making  all  of  his  writings  on  the  revival  available  in  abridged 
form,  it  is  clear  that  Wesley  found  in  Edwards  much  that  he  con- 
sidered worthy  of  the  attention  of  those  involved  in  the  revival  in 
England.  On  the  basis  of  these  abridgments,  particularly  those  of 
the  revival  treatises,  together  with  other  writings  of  Wesley,  we  are 
able  more  precisely  to  determine  the  nature  of  Wesley's  relationship 
to  Edwards. 

Wesley  and  the  Revival  Treatises 

The  first  of  Edwards'  works  that  Wesley  encountered  was  the 
Faithful  Narrative.  In  this  work  Edwards  reported  on  the  awaken- 
ings as  he  had  observed  them,  describing  the  way  in  which  conversions 
usually  occurred.  On  the  basis  of  his  observations,  Edwards  ven- 
tured some  conclusions  about  the  nature  of  conversion.  It  is  an 
inward  work  of  God,  changing  the  heart  of  a  man  and  "infusing  life" 
into  his  dead  soul.^"*  Because  it  is  an  inward  matter,  it  is  neither 
proper  nor  possible  for  one  man  to  make  a  judgment  about  the 
validity  of  the  conversion  of  another.^^  But  true  conversion,  claimed 
Edwards,  appears  to  include  certain  general  characteristics,  such  as 
new  inward  awareness  and  conviction  of  the  truth  of  the  Gospel,  new 
insight  into  the  scriptures,  and  an  inward  love  to  God  and  Christ.^^ 
Edwards  seems  to  suggest  that  these  inward  experiences  might  be 
taken  as  marks  of  grace  for  the  testing  of  the  authenticity  of  one's 
own  conversion. ^^  However,  the  use  of  these  marks  in  the  matter  of 
self-appraisal  should  be  exercised  with  caution,  because  the  degree 
of  these  experiences  varies  with  individuals.  Edwards  observed  that 
there  is  a  "great  difference  among  those  that  are  converted  as  to 
the  degree  of  hope  and  satisfaction  that  they  have  concerning  their 
own  state. "^^  Many  profess  a  high  degree  of  assurance,  but  most 
of  the  converts  are  weaker  in  their  convictions  and  "are  frequently 

13.  John  Telford  (ed.).  The  Letters  of  the  Rev.  John  Wesley  (London,  The 
Epworth  Press,  I960),  Vol.  II,  p.  2>i.   Hereafter  cited  as  Letters. 

14.  Cf.,  Faithful  Narrative,  pp.  64-65. 

15.  Ibid.,  p.  62. 

16.  Ibid.,  pp.  69-70.  73-74. 

17.  Ibid.,  p.  62. 

18.  Ibid.,  p.  82. 


24 

exercised  with  scruples  and  fears  concerning  their  condition."^^ 
Especially  are  they  bothered  by  the  corruption  they  know  remains  in 
their  hearts,  by  the  indwelling  sins  of  pride,  envy,  and  revenge,  and 
by  "wandering  thoughts  in  the  time  of  public  praise  and  worship. "^"^ 
This  remaining  sense  of  defilement  and  lack  of  assurance,  however, 
are  not  necessary  signs,  according  to  Edwards,  that  their  conversion 
is  not  a  true  one.  Indeed  usually,  after  a  time,  the  Spirit  of  God 
renews  his  gracious  influences  and  "doubting  and  darkness  soon 
vanish  away."-^ 

Wesley  read  Edwards'  account  of  the  conversions  in  New  England 
within  five  months  after  his  experience  of  faith  at  Aldersgate  Street. 
On  October  9,  1738,  while  journeying  from  London,  Wesley  recorded 
these  words. 

I  set  out  for  Oxford.  In  walking  I  read  the  truly  surprising  narrative  of 
the  conversions  lately  wrought  in  and  about  the  town  of  Northampton,  in 
New  England.  Surely,  'this  is  the  Lord's  doing,  and  it  is  marvellous  in 
our  eyes.'^^ 

This  reading  of  the  Faithful  Narrative  made  a  significant  personal 
impression  on  Wesley,  contributing  to  an  occasion  of  perplexity  and 
sell-examination  in  relation  to  the  strength  and  validity  of  his  own 
faith.  What  are  the  signs  by  which  one  may  test  the  authenticity 
of  his  faith?  Wesley  perceives  that  a  man  who  has  true  faith  must 
be,  in  the  words  of  St.  Paul,  a  "new  creature."  Applying  this 
principle  to  himself,  Wesley  finds  that  he  is,  indeed,  a  new  man  in 
some  respects  while  lacking  in  others.  He  does  seek  true  happiness 
in  God  rather  than  in  earthly  things,  and  he  has  come  to  view  holiness 
as  a  reality  of  the  heart  rather  than  the  performance  of  outward 
deeds.  Both  his  conversation  and  his  actions,  Wesley  believes,  are 
appropriate  to  his  ministerial  office  and  are  directed  to  the  glory  of 
God.  In  these  ways,  Wesley  sees  himself  as  a  new  man.  In  other 
respects,  however,  he  finds  himself  wanting.  He  still  does  not  have 
his  desires  totally  directed  towards  heavenly  things,  although  he 
does  feel  he  has  made,  and  is  making,  progress.  Furthermore,  while 
there  is  some  measure  of  "peace,  long-suffering,  gentleness,  meekness, 
temperance"  in  his  life,  other  important  qualities  are  missing. 

I  cannot  find  in  myself  the  love  of  God,  or  of  Christ.  Hence  my  deadness 
and  wanderings  in  public  prayer :  Hence  it  is,  that  even  in  the  Holy  Com- 
munion I  have  frequently  no  more  than  a  cold  attention.    Again:  I  have 

19.  Ibid.,  p.  82. 

20.  Ibid.,  p.  83. 

21.  Ibid.,  p.  85. 

22.  Journal,  II,  pp.  83-84. 


25 

not  that  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost;  no  settled  lasting  joy.  Nor  have  I  such  a 
peace  as  excludes  the  possibility  either  of  fear  or  doubt.-^ 

For  Wesley,  such  doubts  and  fears  are  evidence  of  the  weakness  of 
faith.  Faith,  he  believes,  brings  inward  assurance  and  joy,  dis- 
pelling doubt  and  uneasiness.-^  On  the  basis  of  this  self-analysis 
Wesley  concludes  that  while  he  does  not  yet  have  the  "full  assurance 
of  faith,"  he  does  have  some  measure  of  faith  that  he  is  forgiven  and 
reconciled  to  God  through  Jesus  Christ. ^^  He  sees  himself  as  one 
of  the  "babes  in  Christ",  whose  faith  is  authentic  but  weak,  and  in 
need  of  increase.-^ 

This  episode  indicates  two  important  aspects  in  Wesley's  life  and 
thought  as  regards  his  relationship  with  Edwards.  It  illustrates, 
first  of  all,  the  fact  that  Wesley's  awakening  at  Aldersgate,  important 
though  it  was,  was  not,  as  has  frequently  been  claimed,  the  all- 
decisive  religious  experience  in  his  life.  Wesley's  encounter  with 
the  Faithful  Narrative  provides  evidence  of  his  struggle,  even  after 
Aldersgate,  for  the  certainty  of  faith.  Edwards'  account  of  the 
conversions  in  New  England  helped  stimulate  a  self-examination 
which  brought  Wesley  both  comfort  and  disquietude  concerning  his 
spiritual  state,  and  helped  maintain  him  in  the  quest  for  assurance 
which  had  begun  earlier  and  would  continue  into  the  spring  of  1739.-'^ 

In  addition  to  maintaining  and  stimulating  Wesley's  quest  for 
the  fullness  and  assurance  of  faith,  the  Faithful  Narrative  helped 
raise  the  question  of  proper  marks  for  determining  true  faith  and 
conversion.  Both  Wesley  and  Edwards,  as  we  have  seen,  were  con- 
cerned for  marks  of  faith  and  conversion,  and  both  were  agreed  that 
true  marks  were  primarily  matters  of  inward  feeling  and  conviction. 
The  explicit  delineation  of  these  marks,  however,  was  of  interest  to 
Wesley,  initially  for  the  purpose  of  his  own  assurance,  and  later  for 
the  benefit  of  those  claiming  religious  awakening  through  his  preach- 
ing. It  was  largely  the  concern  for  valid  marks  which  led  Wesley, 
in  1744,  during  the  early  years  of  the  revival,  to  publish  his  abridg- 
ment of  the  Faithful  Narrative.  Edwards'  general  characteristics 
would  be  helpful  and  instructive  guides  for  Wesley's  converts. ^^ 

23.  Ibid.,  II,  p.  91. 

24.  Ibid.,  I,  pp.  414-415 ;  II,  91. 

25.  Ibid.,  II,  p.  91. 

26.  Ibid.,  I,  p.  482. 

27.  Ibid.,  II,  pp.  89  flf.,  125. 

28.  It  is  worth  noting  that  the  Faithful  Narrative  still  retained  a  place  of 
importance  for  Wesley  late  in  his  life.  Letters  written  at  this  time  recommend 
the  work  in  defense  of  what  some  believed  to  be  only  emotional  excesses.  See 
Letters,  VII,  pp.  207,  352. 


26 

The  Distinguishing  Marks  was  edited  and  published  by  Wesley 
in  the  same  year,  and  for  the  same  reason,  as  the  Faithjul  Narrative 
(17z^4),  In  the  Distinguishing  Marks,  Edwards  elaborated  on  the 
notion  of  marks  or  signs  by  which  conversion  may  be  judged  re- 
garding its  authenticity  as  a  work  of  the  Spirit.  There  was  a  change, 
however,  in  Edwards'  view  of  the  value  of  signs.  The  Scriptures, 
he  affirmed,  provide  us  with  true  and  certain  marks  of  the  work  of 
the  Spirit  "by  which  we  may  proceed  safely  in  judging  of  any 
operation  we  find  in  ourselves,  or  see  in  others."^^  It  is  possible 
and  necessary,  for  the  well-being  of  the  church,  to  distinguish  be- 
tween true  and  false  conversion.  Edwards  rejected  such  things  as 
"groanings"  and  "tremblings",  or  the  making  a  "great  deal  of  noise" 
about  religion,  as  acceptable  criteria  for  judging  either  the  truth  or 
falsity  of  conversion.^"  He  pointed  instead  to  a  greater  esteem  for 
Jesus  as  Savior  and  Lord,  to  the  turning  away  from  sin  and  worldly 
lusts  and  a  turning  toward  God  and  man  in  a  spirit  of  love,  to  a  con- 
tinuing concern  for  truth  and  a  higher  regard  for  the  divinity  and 
truth  of  the  Holy  Scripture  as  true  marks  of  the  work  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.^^  If  these  marks  are  present  in  a  man,  we  may  be  assured 
that  he  is  truly  converted.  On  the  basis  of  the  prevalence  of  these 
marks,  moreover,  Edwards  declared  that  the  New  England  awaken- 
ings were  "undoubtedly,  in  the  general,  from  the  Spirit  of  God".^- 

While  Wesley's  abridgment  of  the  Distinguishing  Marks  reduced 
the  work  by  nearly  one-half  its  original  length,  Edwards'  views  about 
the  possibility  and  necessity  of  marks  of  conversion,  and  about  what 
are  and  what  are  not  proper  signs  for  judging  conversion  were  kept 
by  Wesley  without  significant  alteration.  Wesley  saw  in  Edwards' 
"marks"  scriptural  criteria  for  authenticating  and  justifying  those 
phenomena  of  conversion  that  were  occurring  under  his  leadership. 
These  marks  he  made  available  to  his  own  hearers  and  professed  con- 
verts. A  contemporary  source  claims  that  Wesley  (and  Whitefield) 
"earnestly  recommended"  Edwards'  treatise  "to  the  serious  perusal 
of  all  Christians  of  all  denominations,  especially  to  ministers".^^ 

Wesley  found  assistance  of  a  different  nature  in  Some  Thoughts, 
Edwards'  third  treatise  on  the  revival.  There  were  many  people  in 
England  and  America  who  were  critical  of  the  awakenings,  seeing 

29.  S.  E.  Dwight  (ed.),  The  Works  of  President  Edivards  (New  York,  1829- 
30),  III,  p.  560  (italics  mine).   Hereafter  cited  by  title. 

30.  Ibid.,  Ill,  pp.  562-567. 
Sl.Ibid.,  Ill,  pp.  580-584. 

32.  Ibid.,  Ill,  p.  588. 

33.  Cf.,  Richard  Green,  up.  cit.,  ]).  29. 


27 

in  them  the  spectre  of  "enthusiasm".  In  England,  criticism  was 
frequently  accompanied  by  overt  harassment  and  persecution.^'* 
Some  Thoughts  was  Edwards'  defense  of  the  American  revival 
against  its  critics.  He  answered  the  charges  of  enthusiasm  by  insist- 
ing that  we  ought  to  judge  in  religious  matters  by  the  testimony  of 
Scripture  alone,  and  not  by  our  own  predetermined  notions  of  re- 
ligion as  a  calm  and  dispassionate  matter,  free  from  any  inward  or 
outward  affectations.  According  to  Scripture,  claimed  Edwards, 
true  religion  is  seated  in  the  heart  or  soul  of  man,  and  consists  in 
affections  of  the  will,  a  faculty  of  the  soul.^'*  Religious  affections 
are  those  exercises  of  the  will  as  it  is  inclined  in  high  degrees  of 
love  towards  God.^^  Such  affections  of  the  will  sometimes  gives  rise 
to  extraordinary  external  manifestations  which,  within  limits,  are 
"natural,  necessary,  and  beautiful,"  and  of  "great  benefit  to  promote 
religion".^'^  Edwards  recognized,  however,  that  emotional  excesses 
were  present  in  the  revival.  Frequently,  instances  of  professed  con- 
version were  accompanied  by  undue  outward  bodily  effects.  Edwards 
did  not  condone  these  things,  but  he  did  claim  that  such  effects  in 
themselves  provided  no  conclusive  evidence  of  the  presence  or  absence 
of  the  Spirit,  and  thus  were  not  proper  criteria  for  judging  either  the 
truth  or  falsity  of  religion.  They  may  be  a  manifestation  of  the  work 
of  the  Spirit,  or  they  may  be  an  excitation  of  the  "animal  spirits"  in 
man.  Other  criteria  are  necessary  for  determining  a  work  of  the 
Spirit  with  certainty,  and  these,  as  he  had  shown  in  the  Distinguishing 
Marks,  are  provided  in  Scripture.^^  Edwards  answered  his  critics 
by  repudiating  their  basis  of  judgment.  On  scriptural  grounds 
Edwards  believed  that  the  revival  was  undoubtedly  a  "glorious  work 
of  God"  and  ought  to  have  the  support  rather  than  the  condemnation 
of  men.^^  Wesley  saw  in  Edwards'  defense  of  the  revival  a  helpful 
rejoinder  to  his  own  critics  and  persecutors. 

In  his  fourth  and  final  work  on  the  revival,  A  Treatise  Concerning 

34.  Cf.,  Wesley,  Works,  XIII,  pp.  169-193. 

35.  Works  of  President  Edzvards,  IV,  p.  83. 

36.  Ibid.,  IV,  pp.  83-86. 

37.  Ibid.,  IV,  232. 

38.  In  Some  Thoughts,  Edwards  mentions  certain  proper  criteria.  "Scripture 
rules  respect  the  state  of  the  mind,  and  person's  moral  conduct,  and  voluntary 
behavior,  and  not  the  physical  state  of  the  body."  Again,  the  following  may  be 
taken  as  valid  signs  of  the  Spirit's  work :  "A  great  increase  of  a  spirit  of 
seriousness  and  sober  consideration  of  the  things  of  the  eternal  world;  a  dis- 
position to  hearken  to  anything  that  is  said  of  things  of  this  nature  .  .  .  ;  a 
disposition  to  make  these  things  the  subject  of  conversation;  and  a  great  dis- 
position to  hear  the  Word  of  God  preached  .  .  ."    Cf.,  Ibid.,  IV,  pp.  85,  105. 

39.  Ibid.,  IV,  pp.  79,  118,  124  fif. 


28 

Religious  Affections,  Edwards  turned  his  attention  from  the  defense 
of  the  revival  against  its  critics,  to  attempt  to  point  with  positive  signs 
to  the  nature  of  true  rehgion  and  to  distinguish  it  from  false,  that  is, 
from  religion  which  consists  of  temporary  emotional  exercises  and 
subsequent  "falling  away".  In  this  work,  Edwards  directed  his 
thoughts  to  those  who  professed  conversion,  offering  proper  signs  by 
which  they  might  "try"  themselves  to  see  if  their  religion  was 
authentic.  To  accomplish  this  purpose,  Edwards  divided  his  work 
into  three  parts.  In  the  first  part,  he  argues  that  true  religion  does 
consist  "in  great  part"  in  holy  or  "gracious  affections".  By  gracious 
affections  Edwards  means  the  "vigorous  and  sensible  exercises  of 
the  inclination  of  the  will  of  the  soul"  towards  God  and  the  great 
truths  of  the  Gospel.^"  He  notes  that  the  soul  and  body  constitute 
a  unity,  so  that  any  activity  of  the  will  of  the  soul  also  affects  the 
body.  Thus  it  is  necessary  to  distinguish  between  passions  and 
affections.  The  passions  are  outward  exercises  brought  about 
through  the  overpowering  of  the  mind  by  the  animal  spirits  in  man. 
Affections,  on  the  other  hand,  are  sensible  activities  which  have  their 
cause  in  the  inclination  of  the  will,  but  the  will  is  so  related  to  the 
human  mind  that  it  cannot  be  religiously  inclined  apart  from  the 
exercise  of  reason  or  understanding.'*^  Gracious  affections  are  not 
mere  passions  or  rank  enthusiasm,  but  activities  of  the  will  based 
upon  perception  and  understanding. 

There  were  some  activities  in  the  revival  that  raised  some  ques- 
tion in  Edwards'  mind  as  to  their  authenticity  as  true  religious  affec- 
tions. He  was,  however,  unwilling  to  dismiss  them  as  having  no 
possibility  of  being  authentic.  Thus,  in  the  second  part  of  the  treatise, 
Edwards  argues  that  such  actions  as  rollings,  shoutings,  and  scream- 
ings  are  not  to  be  considered  as  certain  signs  for  determining  the 
character  of  religion.  He  retains  the  position  taken  in  Some 
Thoughts,  now  directed  to  converts  rather  than  critics,  that  external 
bodily  effects  are  not  adequate  evidence  for  judging  religion,  and  thus 
struck  a  blow  at  some  of  the  notions  of  "popular"  religion  by  deny- 
ing that  many  of  the  signs  accepted  by  people  were  conclusively 
valid.  Better  criteria  than  these  were  required  if  one  were  to  dis- 
tinguish adequately  between  true  and  false  religion."*- 

The  third  section  of  the  treatise  contains  Edwards'  presentation 
of  the  marks  of  "spiritual  and  gracious  affections"  by  which  they  may 

40.  Religious  Affections,  p.  96. 

41.  Ibid.,  p.  98. 

42.  Ibid.,  pp.  127  ff. 


29 

be  distinguished  from  false  affections.  Since  religion  consists  in 
large  measure  in  affections,  Edwards  is  here,  in  reality,  offering  signs 
descriptive  of  true  religion.  True  affections  arise  from  the  inward 
operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  which  gives  to  men  a  new  sense  of  the 
reality  of  divine  things  and  especially  of  the  truth  of  the  Gospel  of 
Jesus  Christ.  In  consequence,  they  are  brought  to  an  "evangelical 
humiliation",  an  awareness  of  their  sinfulness  and  utter  insufficiency, 
which  militates  against  spiritual  pride  and  self-exaltation.^^  Further, 
true  affections  are  accompanied  by  a  change  in  man's  nature  and  life, 
a  turning  from  sin  to  God  and  a  growing  into  the  spirit  of  love  and 
meekness  as  exemplified  in  Jesus  Christ.'**  When  the  affections  are 
genuine,  there  is  an  increase  in  obedience  to  God's  commands  and  in 
the  Christian  practice  of  love  to  God  and  man.  Indeed,  "Christian 
practice  or  a  holy  life"  is  the  chief  sign  of  gracious  affections  and 
true  religion.*^  Edwards  was  attempting,  in  this  treatise,  to  minimize 
the  importance  of  outward  emotional  exercises,  and  to  point  to  those 
signs,  inward  and  outward,  which  are  properly  characteristic  of  true 
religion.*^ 

Wesley's  appreciation  of  Edwards'  earlier  writings  on  the  revival 
did  not  extend  unqualifiedly  to  the  Religious  Affections.  He  had, 
indeed,  some  significant  criticisms  of  the  treatise.  Wesley  apparently 
understood  the  work  of  Edwards'  attempt  to  justify  his  support  of 
the  awakenings  in  the  early  stages  of  the  revival  when,  in  the  "cooling- 
off"  period,  many  of  the  supposed  converts  began  to  "fall  away".  In 
the  "Preface"  to  his  1773  abridgment,  Wesley  says : 

The  design  of  Mr.  Edwards  in  the  treatise,  from  which  the  following 
extract  is  made,  seems  to  have  been  (chiefly,  if  not  altogether)  to  serve 
his  hypothesis.  In  three  preceding  tracts,  he  had  given  an  account  of  a 
glorious  work  in  New  England;  of  abundance  of  sinners,  of  every  sort 
and  degree,  who  were  in  a  short  time  converted  to  God.  But  in  a  few 
years,  a  considerable  part  of  these  "turned  back  as  a  dog  to  the  vomit." 
What  was  the  plain  inference  to  be  drawn  from  this?  Why  that  a  true 
believer  may  "make  shipwreck  of  the  faith."  How  then  could  he  evade  the 
force  of  this  ?  Truly  by  eating  his  own  words,  and  proving  .  .  .  that  they 
were  no  believers  at  all. 

In  order  to  do  this,  continues  Wesley, 

He  heaps  together  so  many  curious,  subtle,  metaphysical  distinctions, 
as  are  sufficient  to  puzzle  the  brain  and  confound  the  intellects,  of  all  the 

43.  Ibid.,  pp.  311  ff.,  315. 

44.  Ibid.,  pp.  340-345. 

45.  Ibid.,  pp.  383,  426. 

46.  Ibid.,  pp.  84,  87-88. 


30 

plain  men  and  women  in  the  universe;  and  to  make  them  doubt  of,  if  not 
wholly  deny,  all  the  work  which  God  hath  wrought  in  their  souls. '^''^ 

Wesley's  objection  concerns  what  he  considers  to  be  Edwards'  hypoth- 
esis, namely,  that  those  "converts"  who  became  "backsliders"  had 
never  been  true  converts  at  all.  That  is  to  say,  the  real  point  of  con- 
tention appears  to  be  a  suspicion  on  Wesley's  part  that  an  untenable 
aspect  of  Edwards'  Calvinism  was  the  informing  presupposition  of 
the  treatise,  namely,  the  doctrine  of  the  perseverance  of  the  saints 
and,  behind  that,  the  doctrine  of  God's  eternal  election  and  reproba- 
tion. True  believers  are  the  elect  of  God  and  therefore  cannot  com- 
pletely fall  from  grace.  Edwards  did  indeed  declare,  in  a  section 
deleted  by  Wesley,  that  a  saint  can  never  fall  away  entirely  and  "they 
that  do  fall  away,  and  cease  visibly  to  (walk  in  newness  of  life),  'tis 
a  sign  they  never  were  risen  with  Christ."^^  In  Wesley's  view  of 
the  process  of  salvation,  election  was  given  on  condition  of  faith,  and 
it  was  possible  for  a  justified  and  regenerate  man  to  "make  shipwreck 
of  the  faith."  This  did  not  mean,  however,  that  he  had  never  been  a 
true  believer.'*^  Furthermore,  it  was  possible  for  a  backslider  to  re- 
cover and  go  on  to  salvation.  The  point  is  that  Wesley  would  have  no 
part  of  a  doctrine  of  unconditional  election  or  of  its  corollary,  the 
doctrine  of  perseverance.^'^ 

In  fairness  to  Edwards,  it  must  be  said  that  Wesley  apparently 
misunderstood  the  purpose  of  the  treatise.  Edwards  was  not  trying 
to  explain  the  fact  of  backsliding  in  the  revival  on  the  basis  of  his 
doctrine  of  election.  Rather,  his  purpose  was  to  explicate  valid  signs 
for  distinguishing  between  true  and  false  religion.  On  the  basis  of 
these  signs,  he  was  able  to  conclude  both  that  genuine  conversions  had 

47.  Wesley,  Works,  XIV,  pp.  269-270. 
4S.  Religious  Affections,  pp.  390-391. 

49.  Wesley,  IVorks,  X,  pp.  242  fif,  284  ff,  297. 

50.  It  is  perhaps  significant  to  note  that  Wesley  usually  deletes  Edwards' 
words  "true  saints,"  or  changes  them  to  "true  believers"  or  "true  Christians," 
thus  eliminating  any  indication  of  the  untenable  Calvinism  he  saw  in  the  trea- 
tise. See,  for  exam])le,  Wesley,  Collected  Works  (London,  William  Pine,  1773), 
23,  pp.  231,  259,  261.  A  brief  example  of  Wesley's  editing  is  instructive.  The 
deletions  from  Edwards'  text  are  in  italics. 

"Every  A  true  Christian  perseveres  in  this  way  of  universal  obedience, 
and  diligent  and  earnest  service  of  God,  through  all  the  various  kinds  of 
trials  that  he  meets  with,  to  the  end  of  life.  That  all  true  saints,  all  those 
that  obtain  eternal  life,  do  thus  persevere  in  the  practice  of  religion,  and 
the  service  of  God,  is  a  doctrine  so  abundantly  taught  in  the  Scripture, 
that  particularly  to  rehearse  all  the  texts  which  imply  it  is  needless,  would 
be  endless."   Cf.,  Religious  Affections,  pp.  388-389. 


31 

taken  place,  and  that  some  conversions  previously  thought  to  be 
genuine  had  turned  out  to  be  false. ^^ 

If,  however,  Wesley  had  such  strong  objections  to  the  treatise, 
it  is  legitimate  to  ask  why  he  abridged  and  published  it.  Wesley  him- 
self enlightens  us. 

Out  of  this  dangerous  heap,  wherein  so  much  wholesome  food  is  mixed 
with  much  deadly  poison,  I  have  selected  many  remarks  and  admonitions, 
which  may  be  of  great  use  to  the  children  of  God.  May  God  write  them 
in  the  hearts  of  all  that  desire  to  walk  as  Christ  also  walked.^^ 

A  study  of  Wesley's  abridgment  shows  what  he  considered  "whole- 
some food".  He  retains  in  large  measure  Edwards'  notion  that, 
according  to  scripture,  true  religion  consists  much  in  affection,  par- 
ticularly that  of  love  towards  God.  Like  Edwards,  Wesley  wants  to 
avoid  any  unconditional  approval  of  all  affections  as  genuine  and  to 
establish  signs  for  determining  true  affections.  "There  are  false 
affections  and  there  are  true.  A  man's  having  much  affection  does 
not  prove  that  he  has  religion :  but  his  having  no  affection  proves  that 
he  has  not.  The  right  way  is  not  to  reject  all  affections,  nor  to  ap- 
prove all,  but  to  distinguish  between  them,  approving  some  and 
rejecting  others. "^^  It  was  in  Edwards'  explication  of  the  distinguish- 
ing signs  of  true  religious  affections  that  Wesley  saw  the  greatest 
value  of  the  treatise.  These  signs  he  made  available  for  the  use 
and  instruction  of  the  "children  of  God". 

Wesley  and  Edwards'  ''Freedom  of  the  Will" 

Wesley's  essay,  "Thoughts  Upon  Necessity",  published  in  1774, 
contained  a  remonstrance  against  Edwards'  treatise  on  free  will.^"* 
He  strongly  objected  to  the  deterministic  position  advocated  by 
Edwards  in  relation  to  the  decisions  and  actions  of  men.  Edwards, 
Wesley  believed,  held  that  all  the  inclinations  of  the  will  are  deter- 
mined, first  of  all  by  the  fact  that  the  motives  causing  the  will  to  be 
inclined  in  any  given  way  arise  from  sense  perceptions  of  objective 
reality  over  which  man  has  no  control.^°  Sensation  provides  the 
"raw-material"  for  our  ideas  and  judgments  which  are  themselves  the 

51.  Cf.,  Religious  Affections,  p.  80n. 

52.  Wesley,  Works,  XIV,  p.  270. 

53.  Wesley,  Collected  Works,  (London,  William  Pine,  1773),  23,  p.  192;  Cf., 
Religious  Affections,  p.  121. 

54.  Wesley,  Works,  X,  pp.  457-474 ;  also  pp.  474-480. 

55.  Ibid.,  X,  pp.  460,  475.  Cf.,  Freedom  of_  the  Will,  pp.  137-148.  Wesley 
repeatedly  summarizes  Edwards'  position  using  quotation  marks  but  these 
"digests"  nowhere  appear  in  Edwards  in  the  form  given  by  Wesley. 


32 

factors  conditioning  the  choices  of  the  will.  Furthermore,  the  will, 
as  a  faculty  of  the  soul,  is  so  united  to  the  body  that  its  "passions" 
of  "love  and  hate,  joy  and  sorrow^  desire  and  fear,"  and  its  actions 
are  also  determined. ^^  The  ultimate  cause  which  determines  the  will, 
however,  is  God,  "who  united  our  souls  to  these  bodies,  placed  us  in 
the  midst  of  these  objects,  and  ordered  that  these  sensations,  judg- 
ments, passions,  and  actions  should  spring  therefrom. "^'^  Wesley,  it 
is  true,  recognized  Edwards'  claim  that  the  actions  of  men  are 
voluntary,  "the  fruit  of  their  own  will".^^  That  is,  men  do  will 
certain  things,  and  are  free  to  act  in  correspondence  with  their 
willing.^^  But  Wesley  would  have  none  of  this  evasion,  and  raised 
the  prior  question  of  the  cause  of  the  choice  of  the  will.  On  Edwards' 
supposition,  Wesley  asserted,  the  will  of  man  is  "irresistibly  impelled" 
so  that  he  "cannot  help  willing  thus  and  thus,"  and  for  this  reason 
the  actions  flowing  from  the  will  are  also  involuntary  and  deter- 
mined.'^^ 

Even  if  Wesley  missed  many  of  the  subtleties  of  Edwards'  argu- 
ment, he  perceived  accurately  the  main  point  of  the  treatise. 
Edwards'  was  concerned  to  show  that  all  events,  including  moral 
actions,  occur  by  necessity  and  that  God  stands  behind  all  human 
volitions  as  their  ultimate  cause.  As  Paul  Ramsey  has  pointed  out, 
for  Edwards,  "either  contingency  and  liberty  of  self-determination 
must  be  run  out  of  the  world,  or  God  will  be  shut  out."^^  If  all 
events,  volitions,  and  actions  come  into  existence  contingently  and 
separately,  then  all  order  and  purpose  disappears  from  history.  The 
governing  providence  of  God  is  destroyed,  and  God  becomes  a  kind 
of  mechanic  having  "little  else  to  do,  but  to  mend  broken  links  as 
well  as  he  can,  and  be  rectifying  his  disjointed  frame  and  disordered 
movements,  in  the  best  manner  the  case  will  allow. "*^-  Edwards  is 
clearly  opposed  to  any  notion  of  self-determination,  and  insists  on  a 
principle  of  universal  necessary  causation  in  relation  to  the  inclination 
and  consequent  actions  of  the  will.*"^ 

Such  a  principle  was  intolerable  to  Wesley  for,  among  other 
things,  it  made  God  the  author  of  sin.     Beyond  this,  according  to 

56.  Ibid.,  X,  pp.  460,  476,  479.  Cf.,  Freedom  of  the  Will,  pp.  137  ff. 

57.  Ibid.,  X,  p.  463.   Cf.  freedom  of  the  Will,  pp.  156-162. 

58.  Ibid.,  X,  p.  467.    Cf.,  Freedom  of  the  Will,  pp.  163-167. 

59.  Ibid.,  X,  p.  467.  Cf.,  Freedom  of  the  Will,  p.  164. 

60.  Ibid.,  p.  467. 

61.  Freedom  of  the  Will,  p.  9;  Cf.,  also,  pp.  180-185,  239-269. 

62.  Ibid.,  p.  254. 

63.  Cf.,  Ibid.,  pp.  171-174,  181-183,  259-260. 


33 

Wesley,  Edwards'  deterministic  notions  also  destroyed  free  choice, 
thus  making  moral  goodness  impossible.  If  a  man  wills  and  acts 
necessarily,  being  "irresistibly  impelled",  then  he  is  not  capable  of 
true  moral  acts.  To  perform  virtuous  acts  requires  man's  free  inward 
consent  and  choice.*''*  Further,  determinism  makes  human  actions 
neither  rewardable  nor  punishable.  Necessary  goodness  or  evil  merit 
respectively  no  praise  or  blame.  In  consequence,  the  whole  notion 
of  future  rewards  and  punishments  is  abolished.*'^  For  all  these 
reasons,  Wesley  felt  compelled  to  repudiate  Edwards'  determinism. 
In  response  to  determinism,  Wesley  affirmed  that  man  is  not  the 
prisoner  of  his  sensations  nor  the  pawn  of  his  Creator,  and  that 
liberty  was  a  part  of  his  original  endowment,  together  with  the 
faculties  of  will  and  understanding. 

God  created  man  an  intelligent  being ;  and  endued  him  with  will  as  well  as 
understanding.  Indeed,  it  seems,  without  this,  his  understanding  would 
have  been  given  to  no  purpose.  Neither  would  either  will  or  understand- 
ing have  answered  any  valuable  purpose,  if  liberty  had  not  been  added 
to  them,  a  power  distinct  from  both;  a  power  of  choosing  for  himself, 
a  self-determining  principle.  .  .  .  Certain  it  is  that  no  being  can  be  ac- 
countable for  its  actions,  which  has  not  liberty,  as  well  as  will  and  under- 
standing.^^ 

The  Wesleyan  answer  to  the  doctrine  of  determinism  was  the  counter- 
affirmation  of  a  principle  of  liberty  given  to  man  at  his  creation  as 
the  basis  for  the  inclinations,  choices,  and  actions  of  the  will,  and  the 
ground  of  accountability.  To  justify  this  claim,  Wesley  argues  that 
the  ability  to  act  with  freedom  in  making  judgments  and  choices,  and 
acting  upon  them,  is  a  common  experience  of  all  mankind.^'^  The 
decisive  argument,  however,  was  based  on  Wesley's  view  of  the  nature 
of  God  as  mercy  and  love.  A  God  of  love  would  not  consign  the 
"noblest  of  his  creatures"  to  a  chain  of  necessary  evil  and  consequent 
condemnation  without  any  hope  of  relief,  but  would  provide  man 
the  possibility  and  means  for  avoiding  evil  and  doing  good.*'^  By 
insisting  on  the  gift  of  the  faculty  of  liberty,  Wesley  placed  himself 
in  unquestionable  opposition  to  the  principle  of  universal  necessary 
causation. 

Although  the  question  did  not  become  explicit  in  his  criticism  of 
Edwards,   we   should   note   that   Wesley's   view   of  liberty   had   im- 

64.  Wesley,  Works,  X,  pp.  463-464. 

65.  Ibid.,  X,  p.  464. 

66.  Ibid.,  X,  p.  468.    Cf.,  also,  VII,  228. 

67.  Ibid.,  X,  468. 

68.  Ibid.,  X,  p.  473. 


34 

portant  implications  for  his  understanding  of  the  human  predicament 
and  the  process  of  salvation.  What  Wesley  said  concerning  human 
liberty  must  be  understood  as  referring  to  a  principle  fully  operative 
only  in  pre-Fall  man.  It  was  on  the  basis  of  his  liberty  that  man 
originally  and  freely  sinned,  separating  himself  from  God,  losing  his 
liberty  in  large  measure,  and  corrupting  his  other  faculties.  In 
consequence  of  the  Fall,  all  mankind  is  totally  corrupt  in  nature, 
"empty  of  all  good,  and  filled  with  all  manner  of  evil".*^^  This,  ac- 
cording to  Wesley,  is  the  natural  state  of  mankind,  and  in  this  con- 
dition man  has  no  freedom  to  choose  "anything  that  is  truly  good" 
or  perform  any  moral  actions.  Because  of  original  sin,  the  natural 
man  has  power  to  choose  only  evil.'^°  However,  because  of  his 
original  freedom  man  himself,  and  not  any  Divine  necessity,  is  re- 
sponsible for  his  fallen  condition  and  deserving  of  punishment  for 
infidelity. 

Wesley,  like  Edwards,  emphasized  the  sovereignty  of  God's  grace 
in  human  salvation.  Unlike  Edwards,  however,  he  did  not  under- 
stand the  sovereignty  of  grace  in  terms  of  predestination."^^  Grace 
alone  is  the  source,  says  Wesley,  and  faith  the  condition  of  man's 
being  justified  and  accepted  by  God."^-  Man  has  no  native  freedom  or 
ability  to  make  himself  acceptable  to  God  through  good  works  or  self- 
reformation.  He  does,  however,  have  a  limited  freedom,  given  him 
by  God  in  virtue  of  the  atoning  work  of  Christ.'^  "Natural  free- 
will," says  Wesley,  "in  the  present  state  of  mankind,  I  do  not  under- 
stand :  I  only  assert,  that  there  is  a  measure  of  free-will  supernaturally 
restored  to  every  man,  together  with  that  supernatural  light  which 
'enlightens  every  man  that  cometh  into  the  world.'  "'^'^  This  free  will 
and  the  "light"  which  illumines  his  corrupt  faculties  are,  in  reality, 
gifts  of  the  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit  working  preveniently  in  man."^^ 
No  man  is  "wholly  void"  of  prevenient  grace. ''''^  No  man  can  choose 
not  to  have  it,  and  in  this  sense  grace  is  irresistible.  However,  it  is 
possible  for  man  to  stifle  grace  and,  indeed,  the  "generality  of  men" 
do  quench  it,  either  through  stubborn  resistance  or  failure  to  follow 
its  promptings.'" 

69.  Ibid.,  VI,  p.  63. 

70.  Ihid.,  X,  pp.  350,  392. 

71.  Cf.,  Freedom  of  the  Will,  pp.  434-435. 

72.  Wesley,  Works,  V,  p.  8. 

73.  Ibid.,  VI,  p.  73 ;  VII,  p.  188. 

74.  Ibid.,  X,  pp.  229-230. 

75.  Ibid.,  VI,  p.  44. 

76.  Ibid.,  VI,  p.  512. 

77.  Ibid.,  VI,  pp.  44,  512. 


35 

Prevenient  grace  operates,  in  one  respect,  as  "natural  conscience" 
enabling  man  to  distinguish  between  good  and  evil,  and  in  conse- 
quence to  know  himself,  his  duty  and  his  sinful  state.'^^  It  is  also 
the  stimulus  of  man's  initial  desires  to  please  God  and  to  abandon  evil 
ways.'^®  Furthermore,  prevenient  grace  restores  to  man  sufficient 
freedom  either  to  resist  the  operations  of  grace,  or  to  concur  with 
them.^°  But  what  does  Wesley  mean  by  "concurring"?  Precisely 
what  does  prevenient  grace  enable  man  to  do  ?  The  freedom  bestowed 
by  grace  does  not,  it  is  true,  enable  man  to  choose  God  or  to  respond 
in  saving  faith  to  God.  Prevenient  grace  does  give  man  a  knowledge 
of  good  and  evil  and,  in  so  doing,  gives  also  the  ability  to  consider 
his  own  state  in  the  light  of  that  knowledge.  Man's  "measure  of 
freedom"  is,  in  reality,  his  conscience  which  functions  as  the  possi- 
bility "of  knowing  himself;  of  discerning,  both  in  general  and  in 
particular,  his  own  tempers,  thoughts,  words,  and  actions,"  and  their 
conformity  with  good  or  evil.^^  Beyond  the  ability  to  consider 
himself  in  the  light  of  the  testimonies  of  conscience,  however,  human 
freedom  does  not  go.  The  man  who  in  the  freedom  of  grace  considers 
his  state  will  be  led  by  grace  to  an  awareness  and  conviction  of  sin, 
of  his  need  for  salvation,  and  will  be  brought  to  despair  about  his 
own  abilities  and  efforts.^"  In  such  a  state  of  despair  man  may  cease 
to  resist  grace  and  thus,  in  David  C.  Shipley's  phrase,  through  an 
"absence  of  opposition"  be  open  to  God's  influence  in  his  life.^^  As 
Robert  E.  Cushman  has  put  it,  "Despair  is  the  neutralization  of  man's 
perverse  volition  wherewith  human  causality  ceases  to  resist  so  that 
Divine  causality  effectually  can  begin  to  operate."'^"* 

For  Wesley,  therefore,  salvation  is  entirely  the  work  of  God's 
grace,  but  not  in  any  sense  of  a  limited  and  eternal  election.  The 
grace  of  God  is  not  for  the  elect  only,  but  is  "free  in  all  and  free  for 
all",^^  preveniently  at  work  in  all  men,  providing  knowledge  of  good 
and  evil,  all  initial  desires  for  God,  and  a  measure  of  freedom,  all  of 

78.  Ibid.,  X,  p.  232 ;  VII,  pp.  187-188,  345. 

79.  Ibid.,  VI,  p.  509. 

80.  Ibid.,  X,  p.  231. 

81.  Ibid.,  VII,  pp.  189-190;  Cf.,  also,  V,  p.  135. 

82.  Ibid.,  V,  pp.  104,  109-110. 

83.  David  C.  Shipley,  "Methodist  Arminianism  in  the  Theology  of  John 
Fletcher"  (unpublished  Ph.D.  dissertation,  Yale,  1942),  pp.  277  ff. 

84.  Robert  E.  Cushman,  "Salvation  for  All :  Wesley  and  Calvinism,"  in 
W.  K.  Anderson  (ed.),  Methodism  (Nashville,  Methodist  Publishing  House, 
1947),  p.  108. 

85.  Wesley,  Works,  VII,  p.  373. 


36 

which  can  lead  man  to  self-knowledge  and  the  condition  of  despair  of 
self  requisite  for  entire  dependence  on  God.  The  emphasis  on 
"free  grace"  and  its  role  is  Wesley's  answer  to  determinism  in  salva- 
tion. At  the  same  time,  Wesley  denies  all  natural  free  will  in  man, 
and  ascribes  all  good  to  the  sovereign  grace  of  God.  Here,  he  says, 
we  come  to  the  "very  edge  of  Calvinism". ^^ 

Edwards  and  Wesley 

If  Edwards  was  acquainted  with  any  of  the  written  works  of 
Wesley,  the  evidence  verifying  the  acquaintance  has  not  come  to 
light.  There  are,  in  the  available  writings  of  Edwards,  no  references 
or  statements  which  provide  conclusive  indication  that  he  had  a 
first-hand  knowledge  of  any  of  the  sermons  or  treatises  published  by 
Wesley.  It  is  highly  probable  that  Edwards  simply  never  read  any 
of  Wesley's  published  works.^'^ 

This  does  not  mean  that  Edwards  had  no  knowledge  of  Wesley 
and  his  ideas.  In  all  the  Edwardsean  corpus,  however,  there  is 
only  one  specific  reference  to  Wesley.  In  Some  Thoughts,  Edwards 
gives  a  description  of  the  life  and  character  of  one  of  the  persons 
whom  he  believes  to  be  a  true  convert.  There  is  in  this  person, 
says  Edwards, 

A  great  alteration  in  those  things  that  formerly  used  to  be  the  person's 
failings ;  seeming  to  be  much  overcome  and  swallowed  up  by  the  late  great 
increase  of  grace  to  the  observation  of  those  that  are  most  conversant  and 
most  intimately  acquainted :  In  times  of  the  brightest  light  and  highest 
flights  of  love  and  joy,  finding  no  disposition  to  any  opinion  of  being  now 
perfectly  free  from  sin  (agreeable  to  the  notion  of  the  IVeslcys  and  their 
followers,  and  some  other  high  pretenders  to  spirituality  in  these  days) 
but  exceedingly  the  contrary.^^ 

It  is  clear  from  this  that  Edwards  at  least  knew  about  Wesley  and 
something  of  his  thinking  about  the  doctrine  of  perfection.  Edwards 
comments  concerning  the  doctrine  no  doubt  reflect  his  fear  that  per- 
fectionism would  tend  to  undermine  the  believer's  awareness  of  his 
sinful  condition  and  therefore,  also,  his  dependence  upon  the  sov- 
ereignty of  God. 

It  would  have  been  possible  for  Edwards  to  have  read  some  of 
Wesley's    early    statements    on    perfection    before    publishing    Some 

86.  Ibid.,  VIII,  p.  285. 

87.  Possibly  the  as-yet-unpublished  works  of  Edwards — the  "Miscellanies" 
and  "Letters" — will  give  further  evidence  on  his  knowledge  of  Wesley's  work 
and  ideas. 

88.  The  Works  of  President  Edzvards,  IV,  p.  118  (italics  mine). 


Z1 

Thoughts  in  1742.^*^  It  is  more  likely,  however,  that  Edwards' 
knowledge  of  Wesley's  position  came  through  the  interpreted  media- 
tion of  George  Whitefield,  rather  than  through  first-hand  reading. 
In  1740,  while  on  a  preaching  tour  in  America,  Whitefield  wrote 
several  letters  to  Wesley,  dealing  largely  with  matters  of  doctrine. 
In  May  of  that  year,  he  expressed  regret  to  Wesley  over  the  rising 
tide  of  disagreement  between  them  concerning  the  doctrines  of 
predestination,  universal  redemption,  perseverance,  and  Wesley's 
teaching  in  regard  to  man's  freedom  not  to  commit  sin.^**  The  follow- 
ing September,  in  a  letter  addressed  to  a  "Mr.  A",  Whitefield  stated, 

Sinless  perfection,  I  think,  is  unattainable  in  this  life.  Shew  me  a  man 
that  could  ever  justly  say,  "I  am  perfect."  It  is  enough  if  we  can  say 
so  when  we  bow  down  our  heads  and  give  up  the  ghost.  Indwelling 
sin  remains  until  death,  even  in  the  regenerate.  .  .  .  There  is  no  man  that 
liveth  and  sinneth  not  in  thought,  word,  and  deed.^^ 

Whitefield  was  evidently  much  concerned  with  what  he  believed  to 
be  Wesley's  "sad  errors".  Within  a  week  of  the  above  letter,  he 
had  sent  two  others  to  Wesley  attempting  in  part  to  prove  that  the 
doctrine  of  "sinless  perfection"  was  not  a  scriptural  doctrine.^- 

Less  than  a  month  after  writing  these  letters  Whitefield  spent  three 
days  in  the  village  of  Northampton  as  a  house-guest  of  Edwards, 
preaching  several  time  in  the  Northampton  church  and  others  in  the 
vicinity.^^  It  seems  inconceivable  that  Whitefield,  in  conversation 
with  Edwards,  should  not  mention  Wesley  and  his  own  intense  con- 
cerns about  Wesley's  views. 

In  the  light  of  these  criticisms,  a  word  should  be  said  about 
Wesley's  understanding  of  perfection.  The  1741  sermon  on  "Chris- 
tian Perfection"  does  contain  Wesley's  claim  that,  according  to 
Scripture,  a  "Christian  is  so  far  perfect,  as  not  to  commit  sin,"^^ 
Those  truly  born  of  God  are  "made  free"  from  both  outward  and  in- 

89.  Wesley's  sermon  on  "Christian  Perfection"  was  published  early  in  1741, 
more  than  a  year  prior  to  Some  Thoughts.  In  addition,  Wesley  had,  in  1739, 
published  a  volume  of  hymns  which  was  prefaced  by  a  statement  on  the  concept 
of  perfection.  Cf.,  Works,  XIV,  pp.  323-327.  Also,  Wesley's  An  Abstract  of  the 
Life  and  Death  of  the  Reverend  Learned  and  Pious  Mr.  Tho.  Halyburton 
(London,  1739)  contained  a  preface  in  which  the  Christian's  freedom  not  to  sin 
was  affirmed.    Cf.,  Works,  XIV,  pp.  211-214. 

90.  The  Works  of  the  Reverend  George  Whitefield,  (London,  1771),  Vol.  I, 
pp.  181-182. 

91.  Ibid.,  I,  p.  209. 

92.  Ibid.,  I,  pp.  210-212,  216-217,  219. 

93.  George  White  field's  Journals,  (London,  The  Banner  of  Truth  Trust, 
1960),  pp.  475-477. 

94.  Wesley,  Works,  VI,  p.  15. 


38 

ward  sin  in  the  sense  that  they  are  not  under  the  necessity  of  com- 
mitting it.^^  In  the  same  sermon,  however,  he  declares  that  no 
perfection  or  hoHness  is  ever  attained  which  "does  not  admit  of  a 
continual  increase".®''  There  is  always  the  need  to  grow  in  holiness 
and  the  love  of  God.  Wesley  does  not  accept  the  term  "sinless  per- 
fection" as  an  adequate  description  of  his  views,  since  it  is  clear  that 
some  vestiges  of  sin  do  remain  in  the  life  of  believers.  However, 
he  insists  that  the  indwelling  character  of  sin  in  man  does  not  prove 
that  it  cannot  be  overcome.®'^  The  point  of  Wesley's  doctrine  is  that 
holiness  of  heart  and  life  is  a  vital  part  of  Christianity.  The  love  of 
God  with  all  one's  heart  and  strength  is  the  proper  and  ultimate  con- 
clusion of  faith.*^**  Even  though  man  must  continue  throughout  life 
to  grow  in  grace  and  love,  Wesley  would  not  say  that  perfection  is 
impossible  in  the  course  of  earthly  life.  Through  the  power  of  grace, 
it  is  possible  in  principle  to  attain  perfect  love,  and  for  this  men 
should  unceasingly  strive.  The  doctrine  of  perfection  is  Wesley's 
radical  testimony  to  the  sovereignty  of  grace.®® 

Conclusion 

The  relationship  between  Wesley  and  Edwards  was  clearly  indi- 
rect rather  than  personal,  depending  upon  intermediate  sources — 
literary  and  human.  Wesley  knew  a  great  deal  about  the  thought 
and  work  of  Edwards,  and  found  much  value  in  his  reports  and  ideas 
on  the  revival.  On  the  other  hand,  Edwards,  so  far  as  we  know,  had 
only  a  single  response,  and  that  negative,  to  Wesley.  A  study  of  the 
relationship  between  the  two  men  gives  helpful  insight  into  the 
nature  of  the  agreements  and  conflicts  between  Wesley  and  Cal- 
vinism. On  some  doctrines,  such  as  unconditional  election,  per- 
serverance  of  the  saints,  and  perfection,  the  two  men  were  unaltera- 
bly opposed.  On  others — the  human  condition,  salvation  by  grace 
alone  through  faith,  and  assurance — they  were  not  a  "hair's  breadth" 
apart. 

95.  Ibid.,  VI,  p.  7. 

96.  Ibid.,  VI,  p.  5. 

97.  Ibid.,  VI,  pp.  7-8,  12;  Cf.,  also,  XIV,  p.  213. 

98.  Ibid.,  V,  pp.  207-208,  211-212. 

99.  Cf.  Albert  C.  Outler,  John  IVeslcy  (New  York,  Oxford  University  Press, 
1964),  pp.  252-253. 


The  Doctrines  in  the  Discipline: 

a  study  of  the  forgotten  theological  presuppositions  of  American  Methodism 

Frank  Baker 
Associate  Professor  of  English  Church  History 

/.  The  Birth  of  the  American  Methodist  Church. 

The  hastily  summoned  Methodist  preachers  who  huddled  together 
in  a  wintry  Baltimore  that  Christmas  of  1784  issued  their  own  decla- 
ration of  independence.  For  all  the  thousands  of  miles  of  ocean 
separating  them  from  England  they  had  so  far  followed  the  precedents 
and  accepted  the  oversight  of  Mr.  Wesley.  So  it  had  been  for  more 
than  a  decade.  Now,  apparently  with  Wesley's  agreement,  and 
even  on  his  suggestion  transmitted  by  Dr.  Thomas  Coke,  they  made 
a  deliberate  attempt  to  erect  a  specific  organization  for  American 
Methodism,  fraternally  linked  with  British  Methodism  but  quite  in- 
dependent of  its  control.  Now  at  last  they  had  their  own  spiritual 
leaders  in  Coke  and  Asbury — technically  equal  in  authority,  but  far 
from  equal  in  the  allegiance  of  their  colleagues.  (One  of  the 
ambitious  little  doctor's  drawbacks  in  the  eyes  of  the  American 
preachers  was  that  he  functioned  as  Wesley's  shadow,  albeit  a  very 
substantial  shadow,  and  one  that,  like  Peter  Pan's,  occasionally 
slipped  out  of  the  control  of  its  owner.)  In  1784  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  secured  its  own  national  leadership,  its  own  power 
to  perpetuate  a  ministry,  its  own  ecclesiastical  organization,  and  also 
took  an  immense  step  forward  in  creating  its  own  ethos. 

A  few  of  the  preachers  doubted  whether  the  throwing  off  of 
parental  restraints  (and  support)  by  this  eager  Methodist  adolescent 
was  wise  and  timely.  Thomas  Haskins  spoke  for  others  when  he 
confided  to  his  journal :  "Oh,  how  tottering  I  see  Methodism  now !" 
Their  two  bishops  managed  to  hold  a  precarious  balance  on  the 
ecclesiastical  fence  without  falling  off,  either  on  the  one  side  of  retain- 
ing full  theoretical  control  of  American  Methodism  for  Wesley,  or 
on  the  other  of  denying  him  any  voice  at  all.  At  the  very  least  they 
insisted  that  the  decencies  should  be  preserved  and  that,  having 
successfully  thrown  Mr.  Wesley  to  the  ground,  they  should  not  kick 
him.  He  was  therefore  indulged  with  an  occasional  kindly  reference 
but  no  actual  power.     Not  until   1787  did  the  preachers  explicitly 


40 

reject  their  1784  agreement  "in  matters  belonging  to  Church  govern- 
ment to  obey  [Wesley's]  commands."  Perhaps,  however,  this 
original  agreement  should  have  been  regarded  rather  as  a  courteous 
gesture  than  as  a  firm  commitment. 

The  first  official  document  embodying  the  organization  of  the  new 
church  used  the  title  and  followed  the  pattern  of  its  British  equivalent, 
though  with  the  names  of  Coke  and  Asbury  replacing  those  of  the 
Wesleys.  It  was  published  in  1785  as  Minutes  of  several  conversa- 
tions between  the  Rev.  Thonms  Coke,  LL.D.,  the  Rev.  Francis 
Asbury  and  others.  The  extent  to  which  this  depended  upon  Wesley's 
so-called  "Large  Minutes"  is  convincingly  demonstrated  by  the 
parallel  arrangement  of  the  two  documents  in  the  appendix  to  Bishop 
Tigert's  Constitutional  History  of  American  Episcopal  Methodism. 
The  ferment  of  independence  was  strongly  at  work,  however,  in 
what  was  omitted,  what  was  altered,  and  what  was  introduced,  in- 
cluding especially  the  subtitle — "composing  a  Form  of  Discipline". 
The  second  edition  appeared  in  1786  as  an  appendix  to  the  "Ameri- 
can" edition  of  Wesley's  Sunday  Service.  This  also  retained  some 
reminiscence  of  the  British  pattern,  but  experimented  with  a  different 
title,  which  retained  little  of  Wesley's  apart  from  the  word  "Minutes" : 
"The  General  Minutes  of  the  Conferences  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  America,  forming  the  constitution  of  the  said  Church." 
Thereafter,  for  the  remainder  of  Wesley's  lifetime,  his  example  was 
completely  forsaken,  and  the  following  five  editions  of  the  American 
Methodist  preachers'  ecclesiastical  handbook  discarded  Wesley's  title 
for  their  own  sub-title,  being  published  as  A  Form  of  Discipline  for 
the  Ministers,  Preachers,  and  Members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  America. 

All  this  time  the  administrative  discipline  of  American  Methodism 
was  evolving,  and  echoes  of  Wesley  in  specific  regulations  steadily 
and  inevitably  diminished.  The  one  area  where  his  influence  per- 
sisted was  that  of  doctrine.  Here  conditions  in  America  were  not 
markedly  different  from  those  in  England,  and  indeed  some  of  the 
theological  battles  of  the  parent  society  were  later  re-enacted  by  her 
daughter  church,  when  the  old  weapons  forged  by  Wesley  proved 
to  have  retained  their  cutting  edge.  The  dependence  of  American 
Methodism  upon  Wesley's  theology  has  been  both  deliberately  ob- 
scured and  strangely  forgotten  by  succeeding  generations,  and  only  in 
our  own  day  is  it  once  more  receiving  careful  attention.  The  extent 
of  this  dependence  is  somewhat  difficult  to  trace,  but  one  of  the  most 
interesting  clues  is  to  be  found  in  the  history  of  the  Discipline. 


41 

We  have  seen  that  the  founding  fathers  of  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church  transformed  Wesley's  Minutes  into  their  Discipline.  At 
the  American  Conference  next  but  one  after  his  death  another  signifi- 
cant change  was  made  in  the  title.  Instead  of  A  Form  of  Discipline 
the  eighth  edition  of  1792  introduced  the  title  that  became  the 
standard  or  model  for  most  branches  of  American  Methodism  until 
our  own  day :  The  Doctrines  and  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church  in  America.  The  operative  word  in  this  change,  of 
course,  is  "doctrines".  The  dead  founder  of  Methodism  is  rarely 
mentioned  in  the  volume,  but  in  its  doctrines,  thus  emphasized  by 
the  altered  title,  we  become  aware  of  his  dominating  though  unseen 
influence,  a  ghost  walking  the  Discipline  for  all  succeeding  genera- 
tions, his  teaching  enshrined  though  his  identity  almost  forgotten. 
Even  when  in  1812  Wesley's  theological  bones  were  disinterred  from 
the  Discipline  and  buried  in  a  grassed-over  grave  exceedingly  difficult 
for  later  Methodists  to  discover,  his  spirit  could  not  fully  be  exorcised. 
Here,  however,  I  suspect  that  my  analogy  is  somewhat  hard  to 
follow  for  those  who  have  not  shared  with  me  the  excitement  of 
searching  out  Wesley's  doctrinal  resting  place  in  a  mysterious  publi- 
cation entitled,  accurately  but  inadequately,  A  Collection  of  Interest- 
ing Tracts.  I  will  therefore  return  from  the  realms  of  fantasy  to  the 
prosaic  task  of  the  historian,  endeavoring  to  trace  the  thread  of 
Wesley's  theology  through  the  maze  of  the  successive  issues  of  the 
Methodist  Discipline. 

II.  Doctrinal  Sections  in  the  Disciplines. 

The  Minutes  of  1785  contained  no  formal  outline  of  belief,  but 
the  document  did  echo  most  of  the  doctrinal  passages  of  Wesley's 
"Large  Minutes".  Three  sections  in  particular  call  for  mention. 
A  verhatiin  reprint  of  Wesley's  statement  about  the  rise  of  Method- 
ism, published  originally  in  the  annual  Minutes  for  1765  and  in- 
corporated with  some  minor  changes  into  the  "Large  Minutes"  from 
1770  onwards,  appeared  thus  : 

In  1729,  two  young  men,  reading  the  Bible,  saw  they  could  not  be  saved 
without  holiness,  followed  after  it,  and  incited  others  so  to  do.  In  1737  they 
saw  holiness  comes  by  faith.  They  saw  likewise,  that  men  are  justified, 
before  they  are  sanctified :  but  still  hoHness  was  their  point.  God  then 
thrust  them  out,  utterly  against  their  will,  to  raise  an  holy  people.  When 
Satan  could  no  otherwise  hinder  this,  he  threw  Calvinism  in  the  way; 
and  then  Antinomianism,  which  strikes  directly  at  the  root  of  all  holiness. 


42 

At  the  very  least  this  makes  clear  the  double  Methodist  emphasis 
upon  evangelical  theology  and  the  pursuit  of  holiness,  as  well  as 
drawing  attention  to  some  of  the  snares  waiting  to  entangle  the 
feet  of  unwary  Protestant  pilgrims  who  believe  that  salvation  comes 
and  stays  by  faith  alone.  Certainly  it  offers  no  encouragement  to 
those  Methodists  who  would  banish  theology  from  the  pew  and  even 
from  the  pulpit,  to  languish  only  in  the  rarefied  atmosphere  of  the 
seminary.  The  sentence  about  Calvinism  and  Antinomianism  was 
omitted  from  the  Disciplines  of  1787,  1788,  and  1789 — presumably  to 
remove  an  additional  snare  from  the  path  of  the  unlearned  rather 
than  because  Satan  no  longer  wielded  those  weapons.  In  the  1790 
Discipline  this  section  was  transferred  to  the  opening  address,  "To 
the  Members  of  the  Methodist  Societies  in  the  United  States", 
though  it  was  not  made  clear  that  the  American  Methodist  bishops 
who  signed  that  address  were  not  in  fact  the  authors  of  the  statement, 
but  had  employed  the  services  of  a  ghost-writer.  Not  until  1796 
were  quotation  marks  added,  together  with  a  footnote  which  stated, 
"These  are  the  words  of  Messrs.  Wesleys  themselves."  And  not 
until  1948  was  this  "historical  statement"  replaced  by  one  emphasiz- 
ing Wesley's  Aldersgate  experience. 

Other  unacknowledged  statements  from  Wesley's  publications, 
similarly  stressing  points  of  doctrine,  were  carried  over  from  the 
1785  Minutes  into  the  later  Disciplines.  The  two  most  important 
were  deemed  worthy  of  publication  as  separate  sections  in  the  volumes 
of  1787  and  its  successors.  "Of  the  Rise  of  Methodism"  formed 
Section  I  of  the  1787  Discipline,  "Against  Antinomianism"  Section 
XVI,  and  "On  Perfection"  Section  XXII.  Of  these  latter  doctrinal 
sections  the  first  emphasized  the  need  for  good  works  as  at  least  a 
condition  of  entering  into  and  remaining  in  a  state  of  salvation.  The 
second  urged :  "Let  us  strongly  and  explicitly  exhort  all  believers 
to  go  on  to  Perfection."  Both  were  taken  almost  word  for  word 
from  Wesley's  "Large  Minutes"  by  way  of  the  1785  American 
Minutes.  Strangely  enough,  although  these  two  important  state- 
ments formed  an  integral  element  of  the  official  constitution  of 
American  Methodism  from  1784  until  after  the  epochal  General 
Conference  of  1808,  their  existence  was  completely  overlooked  by 
the  classic  historians  of  the  Discipline,  Robert  Emory  and  David 
Sherman,  and  only  partly  realized  in  the  masterly  work  of  John  J. 
Tigert,  who  incorrectly  speaks  of  them  as  having  been  introduced  in 


43 

1792  and  omitted  before  the  passage  of  the  restrictive  rules  by  the 
General  Conference  of  1808.^ 

The  Discipline  of  1792  re-organized  the  numerous  small  sections 
of  previous  editions  into  three  chapters,  the  third  containing  miscella- 
neous matter,  mainly  doctrinal,  of  which  the  re-titled  "Of  Christian 
Perfection"  was  section  4,  and  "Against  Antinomianism"  section  5. 
This  arrangement  was  continued  in  the  Disciplines  of  1797  and  1798. 
To  that  of  1798  were  added  "explanatory  notes"  by  Bishops  Asbury 
and  Coke.  Those  to  these  particular  sections  were  very  brief:  "In 
respect  to  the  doctrine  of  christian  perfection,  we  must  refer  the  reader 
to  Mr.  Wesley's  excellent  treatise  on  that  subject ;"  and  "The  subject 
of  antinomianism  has  been  so  fully  handled  by  that  great  writer, 
Mr.  Fletcher,  that  we  need  not  enlarge  on  it,  when  it  has  been  so 
completely  considered  by  him."  With  the  removal  of  the  section  on 
education  in  1801  they  moved  up  to  become  sections  3  and  4,  and  in 
1804  were  promoted  to  the  head  of  Chapter  3,  which  was  limited  to 
doctrine  and  liturgy. 

Contrary  to  Bishop  Tigert's  statement,  this  matter  was  still  re- 
tained in  the  Discipline  of  1808,  when  almost  plenary  powers  were 
secured  for  General  Conferences,  subject  only  to  a  handful  of  restric- 
tive rules.  The  first  of  these  ran:  "The  General  Conference  shall  not 
revoke,  alter,  or  change  our  articles  of  religion,  nor  establish  any 
new  standards  or  rules  of  doctrine  contrary  to  our  present  existing 
and  established  standards  of  doctrine."  This  well-meant  attempt  to 
petrify  the  theological  status  quo  left  a  heritage  of  uncertainty. 

///.  The  Doctrinal  Standards:  their  nature  and  identity. 

What  are  these  "existing  and  established  standards"  of  Method- 
ist doctrine,  which,  like  the  laws  of  the  Medes  and  the  Persians,  may 
not  be  altered?  They  are  apparently  like  the  common  law,  taken  for 
granted  by  all,  yet  capable  of  accurate  and  complete  definition  by 
none,  and  never  summarized  in  any  authoritative  document. 

1.  See  John  J.  Tigert,  Constitutional  History  of  American  Episcopal  Method- 
ism, 6th  edn,  1916,  p.  146.  Their  place  and  manner  of  appearance  varied  greatly, 
however,  so  that  omission  and  error  can  readily  be  understood.  In  the  1785 
Minutes  they  appear  without  any  titles,  the  discussion  of  antinomianism  form- 
ing the  questions  and  answers  of  the  two  closing  sections,  80  and  81,  while 
the  statement  on  perfection  forms  the  lengthy  closing  paragraph  of  the  answer 
to  question  73.  (See  Tigert,  pp.  585-6,  600-2).  In  1787  their  order  was  reversed, 
"Against  Antinomianism"  forming  section  16  and  "On  Perfection"  section  22, 
as  noted  above.  This  remained  true  until  1790,  when  each  was  elevated  one 
step,  to  slip  back  once  more  in  1791  through  the  insertion  of  a  new  section  on 
Band  Societies. 


44 

At  the  present  time  the  candidate  for  full  connection  in  the 
American  Methodist  ministry  undergoes  an  examination  modelled 
on  that  given  by  John  Wesley  to  his  preachers.  Questions  8-10  of 
the  nineteen  asked  on  this  occasion  run  thus : 

(8)  Have  you  studied  the  doctrines  of  The  Methodist  Church? 

(9)  After  full  examination  do  you  believe  that  our  doctrines  are 
in  harmony  with  the  Holy  Scriptures  ? 

(10)   Will  you  preach  and  maintain  them?- 

Similarly  the  British  Methodist  minister  is  challenged  every  year  of 
his  ministry  with  this  question,  asked  at  the  May  Synod :  "Does  he 
believe  and  preach  our  doctrines?"  This  sounds  exemplary,  but  it 
does  not  answer  the  question,  "What  are  these  doctrines  which  we 
must  believe  and  preach?" 

The  accepted  practice  of  the  American  Methodist  Church  seems 
to  be  to  treat  the  Articles  of  Religion  as  "our  doctrines",  with  a 
vague  suspicion  that  something  additional  is  implied.  The  British 
Methodist  Church  has  a  radically  different  approach,  refusing  to 
make  a  credal  statement,  taking  general  orthodoxy  of  belief  for 
granted,  and  thinking  of  "our  doctrines"  as  that  something  else 
implied  but  not  stated  in  American  Methodism.  What,  then,  is 
this  "something  else"?  Perhaps  a  closer  look  at  the  present  posi- 
tion in  British  Methodism,  clinging  so  much  more  tenaciously 
to  ancient  traditions,  will  enable  us  to  visualize  more  clearly  the 
doctrinal  standards  of  our  Methodist  forefathers  in  this  country, 
standards  bequeathed  to  us,  indeed  forced  upon  us,  by  the  first 
restrictive  rule  of  the  1808  General  Conference,  and  loyally  accepted 
by  the  1939  Uniting  Conference. 

The  doctrinal  standards  of  British  Methodism  are  set  out  in  the 
Deed  of  Union  adopted  by  the  three  uniting  churches  in  1932  and, 
unlike  everything  else  in  that  deed,  may  never  be  altered  by  the 
Conference,  though  the  Conference  is  the  final  authority  in  their  in- 
terpretation. This  is  much  the  same  as  the  position  of  the  modern 
American  General  Conference,  though  the  uniting  Conference  pro- 
vided for  a  possible  amendment  of  the  first  restrictive  rule.  (Disci- 
pline, Pars.  9.1,  10.2.)  Yet  in  this  British  Deed  of  Union  the  doc- 
trines are  never  listed  nor  defined,  any  more  than  they  were  in  any 
of  Wesley's  legislation.  They  are  concerned  with  the  spirit  rather 
than  with  the  letter  of  the  law  of  God.  It  is  taken  for  granted  that 
the  Methodist  preacher  accepts  "the  fundamental  principles  of  the 
2.  Discipline,  1964,  Par.  345. 


45 

historic  creeds  and  of  the  Protestant  Reformation",  and  he  is  expected 
to  emphasize  especially  "the  doctrines  of  the  evangelical  faith  .  .  . 
based  upon  the  Divine  revelation  recorded  in  the  Holy  Scriptures." 
Though  these  are  never  strictly  defined,  they  are  illustrated,  in 
Wesley's  manner  and  from  Wesley's  writings :  "These  evangelical 
doctrines  to  which  the  preachers  of  the  Methodist  Church  both 
ministers  and  laymen  are  pledged  are  contained  in  Wesley's  Notes 
on  the  New  Testament  and  the  first  four  volumes  of  his  sermons." 
The  Model  Deed  of  the  British  Methodist  Church  stipulates  that  no 
doctrines  contrary  to  these  may  be  preached  in  any  Methodist  Church. 
The  significance  of  this  lack  of  precision  is  thus  spelled  out  in  the 
Deed  of  Union : 

The  Notes  on  the  Nezu  Testament  and  the  Forty-Four  Sermons  are  not 
intended  to  impose  a  system  of  formal  or  speculative  theology  on  Meth- 
odist Preachers,  but  to  set  up  standards  of  preaching  and  belief  which 
should  secure  loyalty  to  the  fundamental  truths  of  the  Gospel  of  redemp- 
tion, and  secure  the  continued  witness  of  the  Church  to  the  realities  of  the 
Christian  experience  of  salvation. 

The  voice  is  indeed  Wesley's  voice,  though  the  words  are  those  of  his 
followers.  For  this  was  the  principle  on  which  he  tried  to  ensure 
the  loyalty  of  Methodism  to  its  evangelical  calling,  and  these  were 
the  very  documents  which  he  legally  established  as  exemplars  of 
evangelical  doctrine. 

Exactly  this  pattern  was  followed  at  first  in  American  Methodism. 
Gradually  the  Articles  of  Religion  came  to  occupy  a  distinctive  place 
as  a  formal  and  specific  doctrinal  standard,  and  eventually  were 
regarded  by  many  as  the  only  genuine  standard.  As  a  statement  of 
the  theological  emphases  of  Wesley  and  his  American  colleagues, 
however,  the  Articles  are  clearly  defective,  for  where  is  Christian 
Perfection  to  be  found?  The  Methodist  Protestant  Church  tried  to 
remedy  this  defect  by  a  26th  Article  on  Sanctification,  but,  although 
this  is  printed  in  the  present  Discipline,  its  status  is  left  deliberately 
vague,  and  it  clearly  does  not  have  the  authority  of  the  original 
twenty-five.  No  longer  are  Wesley's  Notes  and  Sermons  mentioned. 
Their  place  in  the  trust  clause  for  Methodist  property  is  now  re- 
placed by  a  general  statement  that  the  premises  are  held  in  trust 
"subject  to  the  discipline  and  usage  of  the  said  church,  as  from  time 
to  time  authorized  and  declared  by  the  General  Conference."  {Dis- 
cipline, Par.  174)  This  does  not  in  fact  mean — as  I  hope  to  show — 
that  Wesley  is  not  present  on  Methodist  premises,  but  that  he  is 
concealed  therein,  a  dusty  skeleton  in  a  dark  cupboard. 


46 

To  see  the  early  American  situation  fully  we  need  to  go  back 
behind  1784  to  1773,  to  the  first  Methodist  Conference  held  on  Ameri- 
can soil.  The  preachers  present  agreed  that  "the  doctrine  and 
discipline  of  the  Methodists,  as  contained  in  the  Minutes,"  should  be 
the  sole  rule  of  their  conduct.  In  thus  accepting  the  Minutes  they 
knew  that  they  were  accepting  the  principle  that  the  trust  deeds 
of  Methodist  chapels  should  contain  a  clause  restricting  them  from 
preaching  any  other  doctrines  therein  than  those  "contained  in  Mr. 
Wesley's  Notes  upon  the  New  Testament,  and  four  volumes  of 
Sermons."  This  was  made  slightly  more  specific  in  the  challenging 
opening  question  of  the  1781  Conference:  "What  Preachers  are  now 
determined  ...  to  preach  the  old  Methodist  doctrine,  and  strictly 
enforce  the  discipline,  as  contained  in  the  notes,  sermons,  and  minutes 
published  by  Mr.  Wesley?"  This  same  loyalty  was  demanded  by 
the  Conference  of  April-May  1784  as  an  essential  prerequisite  before 
any  European  preacher  could  be  accepted  into  the  American  work. 

Unfortunately  the  Minutes  of  the  American  conferences  during 
the  eighteenth  century  are  little  more  than  statistical  bones  with  only 
an  occasional  shred  of  historical  flesh  clinging  to  them,  so  that  they 
do  not  enable  us  to  reconstruct  the  body  of  this  primitive  church. 
It  is  to  the  Disciplines  that  we  must  turn  for  fuller  information. 
Even  here,  however,  we  find  the  merest  crumbs  of  theological  leaven 
scattered  in  the  disciplinary  lump.     The   Christmas   Conference  of 

1784  asserted  the  virtual  independence  of  American  Methodism, 
instituting  indigenous  episcopal  government  and  several  modifications 
of  Wesley's  discipline.  But  his  theology  remained  untouched,  al- 
most unmentioned.  A  few  incidental  scraps  of  doctrinal  teaching 
were  retained,  such  as  the  somewhat  inadequate  summary  (in  a  brief 
section  on  pastoral  duties)  of  "our  doctrine"  as  "repentance  toward 
God,  and  faith  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ".  Wesley's  doctrines  seem 
to  have  been  regarded  as  almost  inviolable ;  the  main  thing  was  to 
give  attention  to  the  discipline. 

Both  doctrine  and  discipline,  however,  were  vulnerable.  That  this 
was  realized  may  be  seen  from  the  caution  against  elaborate  building 
plans  for  new  chapels,  which  might  give  rich  men  undue  influence — 
"And  then  farewell  to  the  Methodist  Discipline,  if  not  Doctrine  too."^ 
One  important  casualty  on  the  way  from  Wesley's  Minutes  to  the 

1785  Discipline  was  the  stipulation  about  naming  Wesley's  Notes  and 
Sermons  in  trust  deeds  as  the  Methodist  doctrinal  standards.  For  a 
time  the  American  Methodist  Conference  had  no  explicit  doctrinal 

3.  Tigert,  op.  cit.,  p.  592. 


47 

policy  apart  from  the  three  doctrinal  sections  carried  over  from 
Wesley,  "Of  the  Rise  of  Methodism",  "Against  Antinomianism", 
and  "Of  Perfection". 

IV.  The  Doctrinal  Tracts  incorporated  with  the  Discipline,  1788-1808 

This  deficiency  was  remedied  by  the  greatly  enlarged  fourth 
edition  of  the  Discipline,  published  in  1788.  The  reference  to  the 
Notes  and  Sermons  as  defining  the  general  area  of  Methodist  theologi- 
cal emphasis  was  restored.  This  Discipline  did  more,  however, 
much  more.  The  title-page  drew  attention  to  "some  other  useful 
pieces  annexed" — which  in  fact  comprised  two-thirds  of  the  volume. 
These  five  "useful  pieces"  illustrated  characteristic  Methodist  teaching 
from  the  writings  of  Wesley.  The  first  addition  was  mainly  histori- 
cal and  disciplinary  in  function — The  Nature,  Design,  and  General 
Rules  of  the  United  Societies  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in 
America — an  almost  exact  reprint  of  the  Wesleys'  General  Rules  of 
1743,  though  their  signatures  are  replaced  by  "Thomas  Coke,  Francis 
Asbury.  May  28,  1787."  In  1789  this  document  was  moved  up 
into  the  general  body  of  disciplinary  regulations,  and  has  remained 
there  ever  since,  forming  the  subject  of  the  fourth  restrictive  rule  of 
the  1808  General  Conference :  "They  shall  not  revoke  or  change  the 
General  Rules  of  the  United  Society." 

The  second  tract  appended  in  1788  was  "The  Articles  of  Religion, 
as  received  and  taught  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  throughout 
the  United  States  of  America."  Once  again  this  was  in  substance 
John  Wesley's  work,  his  abridgment  of  the  Thirty-Nine  Articles  of 
the  Anglican  Book  of  Common  Prayer  into  the  twenty-five  of  the 
Sunday  Service  of  the  Methodists.  Once  again  this  was  incorporated 
into  the  general  body  of  the  Discipline,  though  not  until  1790,  along 
with  other  doctrinal  tracts.  Once  again  it  was  named  as  a  in- 
violable part  of  the  Methodist  constitution  by  the  restrictive  rule  of 
1808. 

The  third  tract  dealt  with  Cokesbury  College  and  does  not  here 
concern  us.  The  fourth  was  The  Scripture  Doctrine  of  Predestina- 
tion, Election,  and  Reprobation.  By  the  Rev.  John  Wesley,  M.A.^ — 
an  antidote  against  some  of  the  dangers  of  Calvinism  noted  in  the 
statement  on  the  rise  of  Methodism.  Like  the  Articles,  this  was  in- 
corporated into  the  body  of  the  Discipline  in  1790,  and  was  pre- 
sumably part  of  the  doctrinal  standards  set  up  in  1808  as  inviolable. 

4.  Actually  it  was  not  Wesley's  own  composition  but  extracted  by  him, 
probably  from  the  work  of  William  Wogan. 


48 

The  same  is  true  of  the  fifth  tract.  Once  more  it  is  Wesley,  though 
Wesley  in  disguise.  His  original  treatise  had  been  entitled  Serious 
Thoughts  upon  the  Perseverance  of  the  Saints,  but  his  editors  ap- 
parently found  it  necessary  for  American  consumption  to  expound 
the  word  "perseverance"  and  to  expunge  the  word  "saints".  The 
resultant  title  appeared  as  "Serious  Thoughts  on  the  Infallible,  Un- 
conditional Perseverance  of  all  that  have  once  experienced  Faith  in 
Christ."  (They  nevertheless  allowed  the  word  "saints"  to  stand  in 
the  second  paragraph,  where  Wesley  defined  the  term.) 

To  the  1789  Discipline  a  most  important  addition  was  made, 
augmenting  generously  the  minute  section  on  sanctification.  This  was 
no  other  than  that  spiritual  classic  A  Plain  Account  of  Christian 
Perfection,  as  believed  and  taught  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  John  Wesley, 
from  the  year  1725  to  the  year  1765,  which  filled  nearly  ninety  pages. 

The  year  1790  saw  an  important  change  of  policy.  All  the 
doctrinal  tracts  were  included  as  numbered  sections  of  the  official 
constitution,  and  to  signalize  the  change  a  parenthetical  phrase  was 
added  to  the  title,  which  thus  became  A  Form  of  Discipline  .  .  .  (now 
comprehending  the  Principles  and  Doctrines)  of  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church  in  America.  Once  more  an  addition  was  made  to  these 
tracts,  though  this  time  it  was  not  from  the  pen  of  Wesley.  It  was 
entitled  A  Treatise  on  the  Nature  and  Subjects  of  Christian  Baptism. 
Extracted  from  a  late  Author.  This  had  in  fact  been  published  in 
Philadelphia  two  years  earlier  by  Moses  Hemmenway  (1735-1811) 
as  A  Discourse  on  the  nature  and  subjects  of  Christian  baptism. 
John  Dickins  printed  about  half  the  contents  as  a  separate  work 
of  seventy-one  pages  in  1790,  and  it  seems  quite  possible  that  the 
perusal  of  Dickins'  extract  led  to  its  official  adoption  by  his  colleagues 
as  a  doctrinal  standard  in  this  insufficiently  covered  area. 

The  Discipline  of  1791  continued  to  proclaim  itself  as  "compre- 
hending the  Principles  and  Doctrines"  of  Methodism,  but  added 
nothing  farther  to  the  doctrinal  sections.  In  1792  the  parenthetical 
sub-title  became  a  part  of  the  main  title,  and  from  that  year  to  this  the 
volume  has  remained  The  Doctrines  and  Discipline  of  the  church — 
on  the  title  page  at  least.  This  same  Conference  of  1792 — the  first 
to  be  claimed  as  a  General  Conference,  though  the  term  had  not  yet 
been  invented — re-arranged  the  material  in  its  newly-designated 
Doctrines  and  Discipline.  The  formal  statement  of  doctrine  in  the 
twenty-five  articles  was  promoted  to  first  place  in  Chapter  I,  after 
the  description  of  the  origin  of  the  church,  while  the  lengthier 
doctrinal  commentary  contained  in  the  tracts  was  relegated  to  the 


49 

closing  sections  of  Chapter  III.  A  further  addition  was  made  to 
these,  in  the  shape  of  what  we  now  know  as  the  ritual,  but  which  was 
then  described  as  "Section  X.  Sacramental  Services,  &c."  For  some 
reason  a  few  copies  appeared  without  the  bulky  doctrinal  tracts,  so 
that  "The  End"  could  be  printed  on  page  72. 

In  their  preface  to  the  1792  Discipline  the  bishops  (Asbury  and 
Coke)  differentiated  between  the  two  parts  of  their  doctrinal  stan- 
dards, though  insisting  on  the  importance  of  both,  in  what  amounts 
to  a  recital  of  the  titles  of  the  tracts : 

We  wish  to  see  this  little  publication  in  the  house  of  every  Methodist,  and 
the  more  so  as  it  contains  our  plan  of  Collegiate  and  Christian  education, 
and  the  articles  of  religion  maintained,  more  or  less,  in  part  or  in  the  whole, 
by  every  reformed  church  in  the  world.  We  would  likewise  declare  our 
real  sentiments  on  the  scripture  doctrine  of  election  and  reprobation;  on 
the  infallible,  unconditional  perseverance  of  all  that^  ever  have  believed,  or 
ever  shall;  on  the  doctrine  of  Christian  perfection,  and,  lastly,  on  the 
nature  and  subjects  of  Christian  Baptism. 

Nevertheless  they  were  not  prepared  to  treat  this  supplementary 
matter  as  sacrosanct.  Early  in  1797  Asbury  wrote  about  a  task 
apparently  entrusted  to  him  and  Coke  by  the  1796  General  Con- 
ference: "We  have  struck  out  many  to  us  exceptional  [i.e.  exception- 
able] parts  of  the  tracts.  These  we  did  not  hold  as  sacred  as  the 
discipline,  which  we  did  not  alter  a  word."*^ 

In  fact,  however,  the  bishops'  bark  was  worse  than  their  bite. 
However  vigorously  they  wielded  the  blue  pencil,  the  published 
results  remained  the  same  through  subsequent  editions,  with  the  one 
exception  that  Hemmenway's  treatise  on  baptism  was  removed  from 
the  1797  Discipline. 

The  1798  edition  was  unique  in  furnishing  "explanatory  notes" 
by  Coke  and  Asbury,  who  estimated  that  the  discipline  proper 
occupied  seventy  pages  and  their  notes  one  hundred  pages,  so  that 
even  with  the  removal  of  Hemmenway's  treatise  and  the  ordination 
services  from  the  tracts  the  resultant  volume  would  reach  three 
hundred  pages.'^  In  the  event,  however,  it  was  decided  to  publish 
the  notes  in  very  tiny  print,  and  to  omit  the  tracts  from  at  least 
this  edition,  so  that  the  1798  Discipline  turned  out  to  have  slightly 
fewer  pages  than  that  of  1797.  Not  everyone  was  happy  about  the 
changes,  and  at  the  General  Conference  of  1800  "Brother  J.  Stone- 

5.  Ahered  to  "who"  in  1798. 

6.  Journal  and  Letters  of  Francis  Asbiirv  (1958),  III:  159. 

7.  Ibid. 


50 

man  moved  that  the  explanatory  notes  be  left  out  of  the  next  edition 
of  the  Form  of  Discipline,  except  the  notes  upon  the  Articles  of 
Religion."  After  pondering  the  matter  for  a  weekend  the  conference 
reached  a  compromise:  that  the  Discipline  and  the  notes  should  be 
printed  separately,  so  that  preachers  could  have  them  bound  together 
if  they  wished.  In  the  following  eleventh  edition  of  the  Discipline 
(1801)  the  notes  were  accordingly  omitted  and  the  tracts  restored, 
and  so  it  remained  for  the  editions  of  1804,  1805,  and  1808. 

V.  The  Doctrinal  Tracts  separated  jrom  the  Discipline. 

Another  major  change  was  ordered  by  the  General  Conference  of 
1812,  its  manner  apparently  dictated  by  the  first  restrictive  rule  of 
the  preceding  General  Conference  of  1808.  As  we  have  seen,  this 
rule  sought  to  fix  for  all  time  the  "present  existing  and  established 
standards  of  doctrine".  These  clearly  included  the  Articles,  and 
apparently  also — though  not  quite  so  clearly — the  doctrinal  principles 
relating  to  Notes  and  Sermons,  the  doctrinal  sections,  and  the 
doctrinal  tracts — possibly  even  the  Ritual.  All  these  had  been  in- 
corporated in  the  Discipline  at  the  time  of  the  restrictive  rule.  The 
mass  of  day-to-day  legislation,  however,  was  becoming  embarrassingly 
large.  (If  only  they  could  have  seen  the  tightly  packed  little 
Discipline  of  a  century  and  a  half  later!)  To  continue  to  publish 
these  lengthy  tracts  in  the  Discipline  was  difficult,  to  add  to  them 
impracticable,  to  do  away  with  them  henceforth  illegal.  The  delegates 
meeting  May  1-22,  1812,  eventually  accepted  a  neat  solution  for  their 
dilemma,  one  foreshadowed  and  possibly  suggested  by  the  treatment 
of  the  bishops'  "explanatory  notes".  They  would  publish  their 
authoritative  doctrinal  commentary  in  a  volume  separate  from  their 
doctrinal  creed.  On  the  very  last  day  of  the  protracted  Conference 
Jesse  Lee  moved  and  the  delegates  approved  this  resolution:  "That 
the  tracts  on  doctrine  be  left  out  of  the  future  edition [s]  of  our 
form  of  Discipline,  and  that  the  following  tracts  be  printed  and 
bound  in  a  separate  volume,  viz., :  'Predestination  Calmly  Considered', 
'Scripture  Doctrines  on  Election  and  Reprobation',  'On  Final  Per- 
severance', 'A  Predestinarian  and  his  Friend',  'Christian  Perfection', 
and  'An  Antinomian  and  his  Friend'."  In  effect  it  might  be  said  that 
the  Doctrines  and  Discipline  was  henceforth  to  be  published  in  two 
volumes.  Vol.  1  dealing  mainly  with  Discipline  and  Vol.  2  with 
Doctrine. 

Bishop  Tigert  did  not  seem  unduly  surprised  to  discover  (as  he 
thought)  that  at  least  the  latter  half  of  this  Conference  direction  had 


51 

been  overlooked  for  twenty  years — and  the  apparent  neglect  of  the 
1800  Conference's  injunction  to  publish  the  bishops'  explanatory 
notes  in  a  separate  volume  would  give  some  color  to  this  belief.  (In- 
deed I  understand  that  even  in  these  enlightened  and  efficient  days  it 
is  not  unknown  for  a  General  Conference  to  pass  resolutions  which 
are  immediately  forgotten,  even  by  their  promoters.)  In  this 
particular  instance,  however,  fairly  prompt  action  was  taken.  The 
first  thing  was  to  issue  the  revised  fifteenth  edition  of  the  Discipline 
without  the  tracts,  and  this  was  done  that  very  year  of  1812,  followed 
up  by  a  sixteenth  edition  in  1813.  The  unwary  student  tracing  these 
volumes  in  a  card  catalogue,  however,  would  hardly  realize  that 
extensive  cuts  had  been  made,  for  the  volumes  retained  almost  exactly 
the  same  number  of  pages,  by  the  simple  expedients  of  reducing  the 
size  of  the  paper  and  increasing  the  size  of  the  type.  With  these 
two  diminished  Disciplines  under  his  belt  the  Conference  printer, 
John  C.  Totten,  turned  to  the  supplementary  volume,  which  one  hopes 
was  eagerly  awaited. 

In  1814  there  duly  appeared  the  first  edition  of  the  "Doctrinal 
Tracts",  and  subsequent  editions  continued  to  be  given  that  designa- 
tion on  their  leather  labels,  though  never  on  their  title  pages.  The 
title  remained  constant  (with  minor  variations  in  the  second  sentence) 
through  at  least  fifteen  editions  covering  the  best  part  of  a  century : 
A  Collection  of  Interesting  Tracts,  explaining  several  important  points 
of  Scripture  Doctrine.  Published  by  order  of  the  General  Con- 
ference. The  preface  pointed  out  that  these  tracts  had  been  omitted 
so  that  the  quadrennial  issue  of  the  Discipline  "might  be  small  and 
cheap" — an  unfortunate  phrase  that  was  amended  in  1825  to  "that 
they  might  still  be  within  the  reach  of  every  reader." 

This  volume  was  almost  twice  the  size  of  its  companion  Discipline 
and  contained  360  pages.  The  reason  was  that  Jesse  Lee's  resolution 
had  been  followed  not  strictly  but  generously,  even  to  the  end  of  the 
second  mile  and  beyond.  In  addition  to  the  original  three  doctrinal 
tracts  added  by  1789,  Lee  had  requested  and  been  granted  three  more 
of  Wesley's  smaller  publications  (the  dialogue  between  a  Predesti- 
narian  and  his  friend,  and  the  two  between  an  Antinomian  and  his 
friend)  and  another  of  his  major  works.  Predestination  Calmly 
Considered.  So  now  there  were  seven — or  would  have  been  had  not 
the  two  Antinomian  tracts  been  forgotten — or  deliberately  omitted. 
Already  there  was  matter  here  for  a  volume  slightly  larger  than  the 
Discipline.  As  if  to  atone  for  the  omission  with  a  work  of  supereroga- 
tion, no  fewer  than  nine  other  items  were  added,  almost  doubling  the 


52 

size  of  the  volume.  Six  of  these  were  by  Wesley,  including  his 
controverted  sermon  on  Free  Grace,  his  satire  on  Toplady's  predesti- 
narianism  entitled  The  Consequence  Proved,  and  a  "pinch-hitter"  for 
the  tract  on  antinomianism  (a  word  carefully  avoided)  with  the  some- 
what fanciful  title  A  Blozv  at  the  Root,  or  Christ  stabbed  in  the  house 
of  his  friends.  The  most  considerable  of  the  non-Wesley  items  was 
"A  Short  Method  with  the  Baptists,  by  Peter  Edwards,  several 
years  Pastor  of  a  Baptist  Church,  at  Portsea,  Hants.",  which  filled 
over  thirty  pages  and  had  originally  appeared  in  England  in  1793  as 
Candid  Reasons  for  renouncing  the  principles  of  Antipaedobaptism. 
(Possibly  a  change  in  title  was  indeed  called  for!) 

There  must  have  been  a  reasonably  good  sale  for  this  volume, 
because  an  unaltered  second  edition  appeared  in  1817.  Eight  years 
later  yet  another  edition  was  needed.  This  time  there  was  a  general 
revision.  The  Methodists  were  still  seeking  an  antidote  to  the 
pernicious  doctrines  and  annoying  success  of  the  Baptists.  Hemmen- 
way's  Discourse  had  been  discarded.  Now  Edwards'  Short  Method 
was  shed.  Maybe  Mr.  Wesley  could  do  as  well ;  at  least  they  would 
give  him  a  try.  And  so  the  preface  announced :  "In  the  present 
edition  some  new  Tracts  are  added,  and  Mr.  Wesley's  short  Treatise 
on  Baptism  is  substituted  in  the  place  of  the  extract  from  Mr. 
Edwards  on  that  subject."  As  always,  the  preface  was  unsigned, 
though  it  was  dated,  "New-York,  October  5th  1825."  This  volume 
was  remarkable  for  the  fact  that  each  of  the  thirteen  tracts  was 
presented  as  a  distinct  entity,  its  pages  numbered  and  its  gatherings 
printed  separately  from  its  companions,  though  the  gatherings  were 
signed  consecutively— with  figures  instead  of  with  letters.  Probably 
many  of  the  items  were  in  fact  sold  separately.  This  was  certainly 
true  of  the  last,  Wesley's  Plain  Account  of  Christian  Perfection, 
which  was  described  on  the  title  page  as  "Tract  No.  XXXVI  of  the 
New-York  Methodist  Tract  Society."  Any  surplus  pages  at  the 
ends  of  the  tracts  were  filled  with  appropriate  (though  little-known) 
poems  by  Charles  Wesley,  or  with  additional  prose  material.  Even 
more  was  added  to  Wesley's  Treatise  on  Baptism  (which  was  in 
fact  mainly  the  work  of  his  father)  ;  this  was  supplemented  by  another 
tract,  an  extract  from  William  Wall's  History  of  Infant  Baptism, 
which  Wesley  had  published  in  1751  under  the  title  of  Thoughts  on 
Infant  Baptism,  together  with  "Remarks  on  Infant  Baptism,  by  H.  S. 
Boyd,  Esq."  (an  English  patristic  scholar). 

The  demand  for  these  doctrinal  tracts  continued,  and  in  1831  this 
same  collection  appeared  in  consolidated  form,  the  gap-filling  Charles 


53 

Wesley  hymns  omitted,  and  the  other  material  printed  consecutively 
on  388  pages.  Strangely  enough  even  the  1825  preface  is  reproduced 
exactly  as  in  the  original,  complete  with  the  earlier  date  and  the 
statement  that  "two  editions  have  been  published  and  sold" — a 
statement  which  now  contained  the  truth,  but  not  the  whole  truth. 

The  following  year  the  lasting  need  for  such  a  collection  was 
recognized  by  the  provision  of  a  stereotyped  edition.  This  followed 
the  somewhat  condensed  pattern  of  1831,  still  more  compressed  into 
378  pages.  The  editor  deserves  a  hearty  pat  on  the  back  for  at  last 
restoring  the  original  title  of  Wesley's  Serious  Thoughts  upon  the 
Perseverance  of  the  Saints.  The  preface  was  almost  unchanged  ex- 
cept for  the  re-writing  of  two  sentences,  one  about  the  two  former 
editions,  the  other  about  "several  new  tracts"  (a  phrase  replaced  by 
"some  new  tracts")  and  the  alteration  of  the  date  to  "New- York, 
July  5,  1832."  Indeed  this  change  of  date  is  the  only  evidence  we 
so  far  possess  that  an  1832  edition  was  in  fact  published,  no  copy  of 
the  volume  itself  having  been  discovered.  This  preface  appears  in  a 
reprint,  presumably  from  the  stereotypes,  after  a  title-page  dated  1834. 
Copies  are  also  known  dated  1836,  1847,  1850,  1854,  and  1856,  and 
one  undated. 

In  1861  the  volume  was  once  more  revised,  and  the  new  preface 
closed  somewhat  optimistically :  "We  hope  the  circulation  of  the  book 
will  be  extended  until  the  errors  it  so  ably  explodes  shall  be  fully 
banished  from  the  Church.  The  Publishers.  New  York,  January  1, 
1861."  This  revision  included  a  caustic  defense  of  Wesley  against  an 
attack  by  a  Presbyterian  who  had  been  misled  by  a  misprint  and  his 
own  ignorance.  The  main  alteration,  however,  was  once  more 
in  the  area  of  infant  baptism.  Even  Mr.  Wesley  had  not  won  the 
day,  and  he  in  his  turn  was  dismissed  for  an  anonymous  modern 
writer,  apparently  a  Methodist,  who  cited  not  only  a  liberal  Calvinist 
like  Dr.  Leonard  Woods  of  Andover,  but  also  long-discarded  Peter 
Edwards.  There  were  at  least  two  reprints  of  this  revised  edition, 
one  in  the  1870's  and  another  about  1892. 

VI.  The  Disappearance  of  the  Doctrinal  Tracts. 

In  the  face  of  at  least  fifteen  editions  of  the  Collection  of  Interest- 
ing Tracts  it  is  somewhat  amazing  that  Bishop  Tigert,  writing  his 
Constitutional  History  of  American  Episcopal  Methodism  in  1894, 
had  never  seen  a  copy,  and  in  his  revised  issue  of  1904  expressed 
surprise  at  meeting  with  even  one  edition.  This  contained  the  1832 
preface,  from  which  he  incorrectly  deduced  that  the  book  agents  had 


54 

waited  twenty  years  to  carry  out  the  Conference  injunction — a  some- 
what excessive  delay  even  in  those  unenHghtened  days.  He  decided  to 
supply  the  supposed  lack  of  early  initiative  by  himself  issuing  the 
original  tracts  in  two  small  volumes  of  what  he  could  then  describe  as 
the  "well-known  series  of  'Little  Books  on  Doctrine'  ",  entitling  the 
volumes  The  Doctrines  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in 
America.  In  spite  of  his  confident  optimism,  this  work  also  is  now 
so  extremely  rare  that  I  have  not  so  far  been  able  to  find  a  copy. 

Maybe  Methodism  needs  still  another  Bishop  Tigert  to  reawaken 
us  to  our  lost  heritage.  Our  own  generation  is  at  length  realizing 
that  the  methods  of  Methodism  are  far  from  being  her  only  glory,  that 
the  Discipline  as  it  stands  at  present  has  more  affinities  with  Leviticus 
than  with  Luke,  and  that  the  real  secret  of  an  elifective  Methodism 
is  spiritual  and  theological.  Perhaps  we  need  once  more  to  study  our 
evangelical  foundations,  so  much  taken  for  granted  that  they  have 
too  often  been  neglected.  As  we  do  this  we  should  surely  realize  that 
John  Wesley's  gospel  as  well  as  his  creed,  not  only  in  its  spirit  but 
in  its  literary  expression,  long  remained  and  apparently  still  remains 
an  integral  though  forgotten  element  in  the  "present  existing  and 
established  standards  of  doctrine"  which  form  an  essential  legal  part 
of  the  constitution  of  the  Methodist  Church  in  America.  True, 
"present  existing"  might  at  first  glance  seem  to  refer  to  1939,  or 
1964,  or  1966.  In  fact,  however,  it  is  the  most  recent  successor  of  an 
unbroken  line  of  exact  quotations,  all  General  Conferences  having 
vowed  to  maintain  the  "present  existing"  standards  of  the  predeces- 
sors, and  thus  in  effect  having  vowed  to  maintain  the  doctrinal 
standards  existing  in  1808.  In  theory  at  least  Methodist  theolog)' 
did  not  change  its  eighteenth-century  oil-lamps  for  gaslight  in  the 
mid-nineteenth  century,  nor  for  electricity  in  the  twentieth ;  like  the 
Olympic  runners,  through  the  quadrenniums  it  has  handed  on  the 
torch  kindled  at  John  Wesley's  warmed  heart.  Nor  need  this  cause 
us  disgust — or  even  distress.  Methods  may  change,  but  the  message 
of  God's  eternal  saving  love  in  Jesus  Christ  is  the  same  yesterday,  to- 
day, and  forever. 

[Acknotvledgments:  I  wish  to  record  my  indebtedness  to  the 
librarians  of  the  following  libraries,  who  made  it  possible  for  me 
to  have  access  to  their  treasures,  including  the  editions  of  the 
Collection  of  Interesting  Tracts  listed :  American  Antiquarian  Society 
(1814,  1817);  Library  of  Congress  (1814,  c.1856-60  [Carlton  & 
Porter  J,  c.1872-80  [Nelson  &  Phillips]);  Bangor  Theological 
Seminary     (1825):    DePauw    University     (1836,     1856,    c.1856-60 


55 

[Carlton  &  Porter]);  Drew  University  (1814,  1817,  1831,  1836); 
Duke  University  (1814,  1817,  1825);  Emory  University  (1814, 
1817,  1825);  Garrett  Theological  Seminary  (1817,  1861);  Method- 
ist Publishing  House,  Nashville  (1817,  1836,  1850,  1856,  c.1892 
[Hunt  &  Eaton,  etc.]);  Methodist  Theological  School  in  Ohio 
(1847);  Southern  Methodist  University  (1814,  1834,  1850,  1854); 
Syracuse  Univerity  (1825)  ;  Pittsburgh-Xenia  Theological  Seminary 
(1847)  ;  Vanderbilt  University  (1814,  1850).] 


Frank  Mason  North: 
Ecumenical  Statesman 

Creighton  Lacy 
Professor  of  World  Christianity 

At  the  bicentennial  of  American  Methodism  church  leaders  of 
today  will  be  paying  bountiful  tribute  to  the  "founding  fathers". 
But  if  one  were  asked  to  name  outstanding  Methodists  in  the  "middle 
century"- — say,  1816-1916 — who  would  come  to  the  fore?  Melville 
Cox,  the  first  foreign  missionary ;  Wilbur  Fisk  of  Wesleyan  Uni- 
versity ;  John  R.  Mott  as  a  twentieth-century  layman  ?  What 
bishops,  even,  would  be  remembered  apart  from  their  episcopal 
office:  Matthew  Simpson,  friend  of  Lincoln;  McCabe,  Mouzon, 
William  Taylor? 

Probably  few  Methodists  would  nominate  Frank  Mason  North — or 
even  recognize  his  name.  Yet  when  he  died  in  1935,  he  was  one  of 
only  two  living  poets  to  have  three  hymns  in  The  Methodist  Hymnal: 
"O  Master  of  the  Waking  World"  (#480),  "The  World's  Astir!" 
(#562)  and  "Where  Cross  the  Crowded  Ways  of  Life"  (#465).  Yet 
the  third  of  these,  written  in  1903,  may  well  have  been  sung  by  more 
Christians  in  more  languages  than  any  other  hymn  of  the  twentieth 
century.  Frank  Mason  North,  however,  deserves  a  lasting  place  in 
the  history  of  American  Methodism,  not  for  his  hymns  alone,  but  as 
an  active  spokesman  for  the  Social  Gospel,  as  a  far-sighted  mission 
administrator,  and  as  a  pioneer  in  the  ecumenical  movement. 


Born  in  exactly  mid-century,  1850,  North  was  in  many  respects  a 
typical  Victorian  clergyman.  After  graduating  from  Wesleyan  Univer- 
sity, he  worked  for  less  than  a  year  in  his  father's  business  before 
deciding — in  defiance  of  medical  advice — that  he  must  be  about  his 
Heavenly  Father's  business.  For  nearly  twenty  years  he  served 
pastorates  in  New  York  and  its  suburbs  and  finally  in  Middletown, 
Connecticut.  In  those  days  a  classical  education  sufficed  for  formal 
theological  training,  and  the  scope  of  his  early  sermons  bears  witness 
to  the  breadth  and  depth  of  his  reading  and  culture. 


57 

In  the  realm  of  personal  ethics,  this  generation  would  consider 
North  hopelessly  "square".  He  knew  that  "pasteboards"  with  red  and 
black  symbols  are  not  sinful  in  themselves,  but  he  believed  that  card- 
playing  led  to  many  forms  of  evil.  Convinced  that  most  playwrights 
and  actors  lead  immoral  lives,  he  regarded  the  theater  as  a  center  of 
corruption.  Dancing  he  referred  to  as  "midnight  gymnastics"  or 
"agility  at  the  expense  of  intellect".  Attributing  a  large  proportion  of 
poverty  and  crime  to  Hquor,  he  declared  that  major  responsibility 
for  drunkenness  in  society  rests  on  those  who  themselves  never  get 
drunk,  but  "every  drop  that  goes  into  the  system  drives  just  that  much 
true  manhood  out."  His  favorite  sermon  text  in  this  area  seemed  to 
be :  "If  meat  make  my  brother  to  offend,  I  will  eat  no  flesh  ...  ;"  his 
favorite  illustration,  a  mountaineer  whose  skillful  leaps  across  danger- 
ous chasms  tempt  others  into  fatal  attempts  at  imitation.  In  the 
search  for  a  "new  morality"  such  an  ethical  criterion  deserves  more 
attention  than  it  receives  today. 

Frank  Mason  North  was  not  a  systematic  theologian.  In  fact,  he 
had  conscious  and  conscientious  reasons  for  avoiding  dogmatic  contro- 
versy. First,  that  beyond  the  simple  faith  in  Christ  which  is  basic 
to  salvation,  God's  ways  are  mysteries  which  man  cannot  presume  to 
fathom.  Second,  that  freedom  of  thought  and  responsibility  of  action 
are  essential  to  true  religion.  Third,  that  theological  speculation  and 
debate  may  divert  Christians  from  their  central  purpose  of  active 
service  and  neighbor  love. 

Nevertheless  the  basic  tenet  of  North's  belief  was  man's  partner- 
ship with  God.  In  sharp  distinction  to  Calvin's  doctrine  of  election,  he 
affirmed  his  Wesleyan  Arminian  conviction  that  salvation  is  condi- 
tional upon  the  believer's  response  and  responsibility  as  a  free  moral 
agent.  God  calls,  but  He  does  not  coerce.  Essential  for  true  disciple- 
ship,  he  insisted,  was  the  freedom  to  choose  or  to  reject,  to  give  or  to 
get,  to  follow  or  to  disobey.  For  Frank  Mason  North,  Jesus  could 
never  be  merely  historical  or  merely  an  ideal.  "We  need  to  feel  that 
Christ  is  this  morning  an  actual  being — a  personality  as  truly  as  you 
and  I  are,  that  he  thinks,  feels,  perceives."  ( 1878) 

Refuting  many  a  critic  of  the  Social  Gospel,  this  abiding  conscious- 
ness of  a  personal  Christ  runs  throughout  North's  words  and  works. 
Salvation  by  faith,  he  declared  at  the  end  of  his  first  year  of  preaching, 
involves  not  education,  intellect  or  wealth ;  not  sacraments  or  ec- 
clesiastical organization ;  not  ritualism  or  moralism  or  intellectualism 
or  aestheticism ;  not  even  "union  with  the  Church"  or  "well-regulated 


58 

life".  It  consists  of  personal  union  with  Christ.  When  he  insisted 
that  salvation  was  entirely  dependent  on  Christ,  he  meant  necessarily 
but  not  solely.  He  meant  that  Christ's  role  was  essential  but  not  auto- 
matic. Each  individual  has  his  responsibility  for  accepting  and  follow- 
ing the  Master.  In  fact,  North  once  asserted  flatly:  "He  could  not 
save  us  without  our  consent,  but  He  could  die  for  us  and  by  that  death 
prove  to  us  the  Father's  love."    (1875) 

Yet  man's  stubbornness,  denial  or  rejection  cannot  change  the 
reality  of  God  and  His  love.  To  the  "death  of  God"  theologians  North 
would  probably  say,  as  he  did  in  1879:  "Walk  if  you  choose  in  your 
own  shadow.  Hide  yourselves — you  cannot  hide  the  Sun.  Burrow 
into  your  rocky  caves — the  Sun  is  no  less  shining.  Hurry  into  your 
idol  temples  and  peer  through  the  stained  windows  of  your  super- 
stition— and  yet — the  Sun  is  risen."  Though  North  believed  firmly 
in  justification  by  faith,  he  was  equally  convinced  that  faith  without 
works  is  dead.  "Conversions  which  still  leave  men  liars,  cheats, 
covetous,  worldly-minded  are  not  counted  in  the  Kingdom  of  God," 
he  wrote. -^ 

In  his  pastoral  ministry,  as  at  every  stage  of  his  varied  career. 
North  took  positions  and  revealed  insights  far  ahead  of  his  time. 
During  the  last  quarter  of  the  nineteenth  century,  when  evolution  and 
biblical  criticism  were  shocking  many  segments  of  the  Church,  Frank 
Mason  North  accepted  both  calmly  and  fitted  them  easily  into  his 
pattern  of  faith.  Of  the  English  Revised  Version  (1881-1885)  he  as- 
sured his  congregation : 

No  great  doctrine  has  been  touched — nothing  in  any  way  essential  to 
Salvation  has  been  left  out — the  Bible  as  it  has  entered  into  the  hearts  of 
the  masses  for  these  centuries  is  the  same  Bible.  .  .  .  The  scheme  of  salva- 
tion is  untouched  by  the  latest  criticism.  ...  [It  should  be  received  as] 
not  a  new  Bible  nor  a  rival  of  the  old  [but  as]  an  incentive  to  study  .  .  . 
[and  a]  testimony  to  the  power  of  God  to  preserve  His  truth.  .  .  . 

In  the  progressive  outlook  of  Frank  Mason  North  there  was  never 
a  conflict  between  science  and  religion — not  between  true  science  and 
true  religion.  "Science  is  good,"  he  affinned  at  the  very  outset  of  his 
ministry,  "when  used  to  illustrate  the  truth  of  revelation."  (1873) 
What  did  offend  the  young  cleric  was  any  attempt  to  displace  religion 
by  science.  Though  often  ridiculing  those  who  feared  and  avoided 
scientific  hypotheses,  he  maintained  that  science  could  explain  the  how 
of  nature  but  not  the  why,  the  laws  but  not  the  cause.    Whatever 

1.  The  Christian  City,  Vol.  XI,  No.  9  (September,  1899),  p.  146. 


59 

future  scientific  research  might  reveal,  he  was  sublimely  confident  that 
it  need  not  and  would  not  jeopardize  Christian  truth.  "Philosophy 
can  hew  no  tomb  which  can  hold  the  Son  of  God,"  he  declared; 
"Science  can  roll  no  stone  against  the  sepulchre  large  enough  to  keep 
Him  prisoner."    (1879) 

The  most  striking  impression  to  emerge  from  a  perusal  of 
literally  hundreds  of  North's  sermon  notes  and  manuscripts  is  this :  one 
of  the  greatest  exponents  of  the  Social  Gospel  in  the  early  twentieth 
century  seldom  if  ever  made  direct  social  applications  in  his  early 
preaching.  Furthermore,  in  his  wide-ranging  use  of  biblical  texts  (all 
but  four  New  Testament  books  and  fourteen  in  the  Old  Testament) 
the  prophets  were  largely  neglected.  Yet,  though  he  made  little 
mention  at  that  time  of  a  social  or  evangelistic  mission  for  the  Church, 
the  young  preacher  was  not  unmindful  of  it.  "The  Church  must  be  'in 
the  world' — and  the  world  shall  hate  it — but  not  overcome  it,"  he 
warned  in  1878. 

Reviewing  Systematic  Theology:  A  Complete  Body  of  Wesley  an 
Arminian  Divinity  by  Thomas  O.  Summers  of  Vanderbilt,  Frank 
Mason  North  disagreed  with  many  of  the  professor's  stands,  including 
rejection  of  evolution.  But  he  proclaimed  his  hearty  overall  acceptance 
of— 

a  scheme  of  theology  .  .  .  originating  as  a  distinct  system  in  the  views  of 
Arminius  upon  human  freedom  and  the  doctrines  of  grace  .  .  .  rebuking, 
modifying,  and  at  times  conquering  the  prevalent  ultra-Calvinism.  Its 
strong  appeal  to  the  tribunal  of  human  consciousness  against  the  meta- 
physical subtleties  which  damned  men  by  logic  whom  God  would  save  by 
mercy,  won  ...  a  large  support  from  the  class  of  thinkers  who  .  .  . 
were  beginning  to  throw  off  the  chains  of  scholasticism.  ...  It  was  in 
Wesleyanism  that  Arminianism  became  practical,  vital,  regnant;  and  the 
living  energy  of  Methodism  ...  is  at  once  a  magnificent  protest  against 
metaphysical  misinterpretation  of  the  divine  character,  and  a  mighty 
demonstration  of  the  Scriptural  integrity  of  its  own  Arminian  creed. ^ 

II 

For  two  decades  in  middle  life,  Frank  Mason  North  not  only 
articulated  the  "Social  Gospel"  in  poetry  and  prose ;  he  put  it  into 
daily  practice.  In  1892  he  became  Secretary  of  the  New  York  City 
Church  Extension  and  Missionary  Society.  This  agency  existed — 
and  still  exists — to  initiate,  supervise  and  coordinate  numerous 
"inner-city"  projects  of  Methodism   in  the  great   metropolis.    The 

2.  "Wesleyan  Arminian  Divinity"  ("By  An  Arminian  Divine"),  Christian 
Union,  May  9,  1889. 


60 

famous  Church  of  All  Nations  was  founded  during  this  period,  and 
separate  congregations  were  organized  for  most  of  the  diverse  ethnic 
or  linguistic  immigrant  groups :  Germans,  Italians,  Poles,  Russians, 
Chinese,  Japanese.  Problems  of  crime  and  vice,  of  political  corruption 
and  economic  exploitation,  multiplied  rapidly  as  commerce  and  urbani- 
zation accelerated.  (In  1904,  in  his  house  organ.  The  Christian  City, 
North  speculated  about  the  probable  effects  of  the  new  subway  which 
could  transport  passengers  from  125th  Street  to  Brooklyn  Bridge  in 
twenty  to  twenty-five  minutes.  He  did  not  envision  the  chaos  created 
when  it  might  cease  to  transport  its  millions  of  passengers  !) 

"In  haunts  of  wretchedness  and  need,"  across  "shadowed  thres- 
holds dark  with  fears"  and  grief  and  greed,  Frank  Mason  North 
walked  the  city  streets,  a  tall,  dignified  man  with  a  Prince  Albert 
coat — and  a  heart  of  compassion  as  large  as  the  parish  he  served. 
Through  his  editorial  columns  in  half  a  dozen  church  magazines,  from 
the  platforms  of  Carnegie  Hall  or  Union  Square,  in  countless  pulpits, 
North  pled  for  a  recognition  of  Christian  responsibility  amid  urban 
needs.  As  early  as  1892,  fifteen  years  before  Walter  Rauschenbusch 
published  his  first  influential  book,  Frank  Mason  North  deplored  the 
fact  that  "there  are  people  who  do  not  perceive  that  God  is  at  work 
in  the  secular  world  as  truly  as  he  is  in  the  religious."  Is  the  Christian, 
he  asked  repeatedly,  "to  rejoice  in  the  growing  light  of  the  suburbs 
while  the  shadows  deepen  and  lengthen  upon  the  heart  of  the  city?" 
(No  wonder  it  has  been  said  that  Harvey  Cox's  concern  for  the  secular 
city  is  merely  a  return  to  the  insights  and  the  sensitivity  of  the  early 
Social  Gospel.) 

As  a  senior  in  college  North  had  composed  an  essay  on  Socialism 
which  deplored  its  atheism,  its  license,  its  conformity,  its  impersonal 
system  that  "makes  society  a  machine,  man  a  cipher,  God  a  bungler !" 
But  he  recognized,  too,  "a  germ  of  truth  which  .  .  .  threatens  to 
revolutionize  .  .  .  the  world  ...  to  break  down  the  barriers  of  caste,  to 
secure  for  all  men  equal  and  political  rights."  In  1891,  however,  he 
published  in  Zion's  Herald,  a  Methodist  periodical,  one  of  the  most 
important  writings  in  the  entire  Social  Gospel  movement,  a  series  of 
four  articles  on  Socialism  and  Christianity.^  Pointing  to  a  number  of 
parallels  between  these  two  faiths.  North  acknowledged  the  dangers 
and  limitations  of  Socialism,  restricted  by  its  concern  for  one  world 
instead  of  two.  But  he  insisted  that  its  best  ideals  were  those  of  true 
Christianity,  that  the  Giurch  was  guilty  of  propagating  the  "funda- 
3.  Zion's  Herald,  Vol.  LXIX,  Nos.  2-5  (January  14-Fehruary  4,  1891). 


61 

mental  misconception"  that  the  Gospel  is  "a  divine  contrivance  for 
redeeming  men  from  this  present  world  rather  than  in  it,"  and  the 
half-truth  "that  Christ  came  to  rescue  the  individual,  not  to  reform 
society." 

With  his  transfer  to  New  York,  Frank  Mason  North  became  the 
supreme  example  of  "the  city  missionary".  Yet  his  was  no  shallow 
humanitarianism.  "This  man  with  a  mission  to  the  cities  must  be 
evangelical  in  faith  and  evangelical  in  method,"  North  wrote ;  "he  will 
be  a  gospel-man  in  what  he  believes  and  in  what  he  does."*  But  he 
must  also  "be  awake  to  the  progress  of  social  and  economic  ideas. 
.  .  .He  needs  to  see  humanity  in  the  mass  as  well  as  the  individual  in 
the  masses." 

He  stands  in  some  dark,  fetid  court  .  .  .  reeking  with  the  filth  and  im- 
morality of  human  degradation  and  he  is  bound  to  scrutinize  that  precious 
idol  of  the  economist — the  right  of  private  property.  He  kneels  at  the  bed- 
side of  the  dying  child,  who  lies  scorching  with  scarlet  fever  or  choking 
with  diphtheria,  and  with  his  very  prayer  mingles  indignant  protest  against 
the  neglect  of  sanitary  science  by  landlord  and  municipality.  He  traces 
everywhere  the  relation  of  the  corner  liquor  saloon,  protected  by  law,  to 
the  vice  of  the  brothel  and  the  squalor  of  homes.  .  .  .  He  deals  with  work- 
ing men.  He  is  familiar  with  the  red  flag.  ...  It  is  through  his  heart, 
warm  with  the  divine  love,  and  his  mind,  intelligent  with  the  wisdom  which 
is  from  above,  that  the  world  must  gain  the  knowledge  requisite  for  the 
solution  of  the  mighty  problems  which  confront  its  progress.  .  .  . 

Out  of  such  scenes  of  misery  and  despair  came  North's  masterpiece 
of  hymnody.  He  never  lost  faith  that  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  incar- 
nate in  human  beings,  could  overcome  these  social  sins.  He  never  lost 
faith  that  the  Church  has  a  vital  obligation  to  serve  as  Christ's  instru- 
ment in  the  world.  "Methodism  must  reach  both  ways,"  he  insisted ; 
"she  must  touch  God  on  one  hand  and  on  the  other  the  people.  Nay, 
the  figure  is  false.  God  is  with  the  people,  and  Methodism  can  find 
each  only  by  seeking  the  other."  How  contemporary  that  sounds! 
How  slow  we  have  been  to  recognize  that  truth ! 

The  Church  of  Christ — of  Christ  who  went  about  doing  good — must  walk 
about  the  streets,  and  go  down  upon  the  East  side,  and  enter  into  poverty's 
home,  and  chat  with  the  working  man  over  his  hardships,  or  enter  into  his 
aspirations  for  a  better  job;  it  must  help  the  bright  boy  to  an  education  and 
the  bad  boy  to  escape  from  his  surroundings ;  it  must,  by  a  membership 
vital  with  the  divine  life,  establish  relations  of  sympathy  and  helpfulness,  in 

4.  Central  Christian  Advocate,  January  4,  1893. 


62 

all  possible  ways,  with  the  individuals  in  tlie  dense  mass  of  humanity  which, 
like  an  impenetrable  wall,  confronts  it.  .  .  .  It  must  wipe  out  the  fine  distinc- 
tion between  iniquity  and  in-equity.^ 

Fifteen  years  later  Frank  Mason  North  joined  with  half  a  dozen 
younger  colleagues  to  organize  the  Methodist  Federation  for  Social 
Service,  an  agency  which  more  recently  has  drawn  controversial  at- 
tack, but  which  initially  earned  the  overwhelming  though  unofficial 
support  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  The  following  year,  1908, 
members  of  the  Federation  (including  North,  Herbert  Welch,  and — 
most  actively — Harry  F.  Ward)  composed  the  ten-point  bill  of  rights 
for  labor  which  was  adopted  by  the  Methodist  General  Conference  as 
its  Social  Creed.  Six  months  later  Frank  Mason  North  took  this  state- 
ment, incorporated  it  into  a  stirring  theological  treatise  on  Christian 
social  responsibiHty,  and  presented  it  to  the  first  meeting  of  the  Federal 
Council  of  Churches  as  a  report  on  "The  Churches  and  Modern 
Industry".  There  North's  larger  formulation,  officially  adopted,  be- 
came "The  Social  Creed  of  the  Churches",  a  milestone  in  American 
Christianity. 

What  distinguishes  the  Social  Creed — in  spite  of  later  distortions 
by  friends  and  critics  alike — is  the  unequivocal  affirmation  of  "the 
supreme  authority  of  Jesus  Christ  .  .  .  not  merely  to  reform  society  but 
to  save  it."  As  the  Preamble  asserts :  "The  Church  becomes  worthless 
for  its  higher  purpose  when  it  deals  with  conditions  and  forgets  char- 
acter, relieves  misery  and  ignores  sin,  pleads  for  justice  and  under- 
values forgiveness."  But  the  reason  for  this  concern  North  made 
abundantly  clear :  it  is  rooted  in  the  nature  and  purpose  of  the  Gospel 
itself.  "The  Church  does  not  lay  the  foundations  of  a  social  order,"  he 
declared ;  "it  discloses  them.  They  are  already  laid.  .  .  .  Nothing  that 
concerns  human  life  can  be  alien  to  the  Church  of  Christ." 

Thus  for  twenty  years  Frank  Mason  North  moved  among  the 
penniless  immigrants  and  the  wealthy  philanthropists  of  New  York 
City.  By  his  challenge  to  Christian  justice  and  compassion,  by  his 
personal  character  and  commitment,  he  not  only  attracted  large 
donations  for  the  work  of  the  City  Society,  but  he  persuaded  promi- 
nent citizens  to  visit  the  rescue  missions,  to  kneel  in  prayer  among  so- 
called  "Bowery  bums",  to  talk  with  union  leaders  and  Tammany  poli- 
ticians.   "No  organization  or  order  of  men  on  the  face  of  the  earth," 

5.  "The  Gospel  for  the  City ;  Larger  Ideals  as  well  as  New  Methods,"  ad- 
dress to  the  first  session  of  the  National  City  Evangelization  Union,  November 
17,  1892. 


63 

he  believed,  "must  be  permitted  to  usurp  the  place  of  the  Church  of 
the  Christ  as  the  champion  of  human  rights."^ 

Ill 

After  exactly  two  decades  in  the  City  Society,  North  was  elected 
by  the  General  Conference  of  1912  as  one  of  three  Corresponding 
Secretaries  in  the  Board  of  Foreign  Missions.  To  this  new  appoint- 
ment he  brought  a  firm  faith  in  the  missionary  enterprise  and  an 
unusual  administrative  talent.  To  supplement  these  with  first-hand 
knowledge  of  the  overseas  mission  program  he  set  out  in  1914  on  a 
tour  of  the  Asian  field  which  took  him  on  around  the  world.  Though 
his  original  sailing  from  San  Francisco  was  delayed  and  his  later 
itinerary  disrupted  by  the  outbreak  of  war  in  Europe,  he  completed  an 
arduous  trip  and  vastly  strengthened  not  only  his  own  understanding 
of  the  world  mission  of  the  church,  but  also  sympathetic  trust  between 
the  missionaries  and  the  home  office. 

Frank  Mason  North's  pioneer  vision  shone  as  brightly  through 
his  missionary  administration  as  it  had  in  the  inner  city,  though  he  was 
already  in  his  sixties.  His  belief  in  Christian  responsibility  for  world 
service  and  evangelism  rested  again  on  his  Wesleyan  theology.  "Men 
should  be  the  instruments  for  saving  men,"  he  declared ;  in  fact,  man  is 
"the  sole  medium  by  which  the  Gospel  can  come  to  the  unsaved 
humanity."  (1882)  In  language  which  strikingly  anticipates  present- 
day  mission  theology,  he  asserted  in  a  youthful  sermon  back  in  1881 : 
"The  Church  is  a  Mission" — a  far  more  dynamic  concept  than  simply 
that  the  Church  has  a  mission.  Furthermore,  North  regarded  this  mis- 
sion as  an  essential  element  in  any  genuine  religious  experience. 
"The  call  to  tell  the  Glad  Tidings,"  he  said,  "is  as  surely  a  part  of 
personal  salvation  as  is  the  forgiveness  of  sins."  (1889)  As  Jonah 
discovered  long,  long  ago,  the  summons  to  mission  is  inescapable ;  the 
only  question  a  faithful  Christian  need  consider  is  where  ?  or  how  ? 

Even  more  remarkable,  North's  concern  for  the  mission  of  the 
church  was  not  based  on  any  narrow  nineteenth-century  pietism.  His 
entire  life  and  thought  found  its  purpose  and  power  in  a  personal 
experience  of  Jesus  Christ.  But  this  was  an  eternal  and  living  Christ, 
as  relevant  to  the  present  and  the  future  as  to  the  past.  Thus,  signif- 
icantly, Frank  Mason  North  confronted  the  world  mission  of  the 
church  from  a  new  theological  frontier  in  his  attitude  toward  non- 

6.  "City  Missions  and  Social  Problems,"  Methodist  Review,  Vol.  LXXV, 
No.  2  (March-April,  1893),  pp.  237-238. 


64 

Christian  religions.  Most  nineteenth-century  missionaries  had  re- 
sponded to  Christ's  call  with  the  clear  conviction  that  all  those  individ- 
uals— of  every  nation,  race  and  creed — who  did  not  consciously  and 
openly  accept  the  Christian  faith  (presumably  expressed  in  baptism 
and  church  membership)  were  doomed  to  eternal  punishment.  Even 
today,  those  who  try  to  fathom  the  mysteries  of  salvation  are  often 
perplexed  by  the  seeming  contradiction  between  inclusive  love  and  ex- 
clusive judgment  in  the  Gospel. 

North  did  not  presume  to  offer  logical  answers,  but  he  did  have 
clear  theological  convictions.  One  of  these,  in  regard  to  non- 
Christians,  was  that  "God  will  not  condemn  them  because  they  do  not 
believe  in  truths  they  have  never  heard."  Expressing  the  hope  that 
"such  exceptions  need  not  be  made  in  a  Christian  land,"  he  neverthe- 
less took  the  still  more  radical  position  that  "I  care  not  whether  they 
are  in  the  church  or  not.  .  .  .  God  requires  of  us  only  according  to  our 
light."  In  other  words,  the  conditions  for  Christian  salvation  are 
always  a  conjunction  of  opportunity  and  responsibility.  Incidentally, 
in  this  connection.  North  did  not  hesitate  to  link  with  the  "poor, 
degraded  heathens"  the  "man  of  prejudiced  habits  of  thought  and  life", 
both  standing  equally  in  need  of  redeeming  grace. 

The  mission  of  the  church,  therefore,  is  not  to  take  Christ  to  the 
man  of  superstition,  whether  the  superstition  be  rooted  in  ignorance 
or  bigotry,  for  Christ  is  already  there,  already  Lord  of  all  nations  and 
all  cultures.  The  missionary  is  called  to  witness,  in  deed  as  well  as 
word,  to  that  Christian  presence  in  the  world.  To  take  this  modem 
theology  of  mission  one  step  further,  one  might  say  the  Christian  is 
called  to  he  that  presence  of  Christ,  that  love  made  manifest,  in 
Chinatown,  in  South  African  ghettoes,  or  among  Hindu  burning  ghats. 
(North  would  have  rejoiced,  as  others  did,  at  the  news  that  the  choir 
of  Christ  Methodist  Church  in  New  Delhi  sang  Christian  hymns  while 
the  body  of  Prime  Minister  Shastri  lay  in  state  early  in  January.  This 
was  a  unique  but  meaningful  kind  of  Christian  presence.) 

Far  back  in  his  pastoral  ministry  Frank  Mason  North  had  ex- 
pressed progressive  mission  attitudes  and  policies  which  have  only 
very  slowly  been  accepted  and  implemented.   For  example — 

The  sooner  we  escape  from  the  artificial  sentiment  which  reckons  other 
lands,  as  it  formerly  regarded  remote  parts  of  our  own,  as  missionary 
territory  to  which  embassies  are  to  be  sent,  and  recognize  them  as  part  of 
the  commonwealth  of  the  world,  for  which  we  bear  a  given  responsibility 
no  different  in  kind  from  that  which  rests  upon  us  for  our  own  nation,  the 


65 

more  rapid  will  be  the  mobilization  of  the  forces  which  are  to  conquer  the 
world  for  ChristJ 

Or  again,  long  before  North  assumed  administrative  responsibility  for 
the  foreign  mission  program  of  the  church,  he  recognized  that  true 
evangelism  includes  far  more  than  proclamation.  "The  belief  in  the 
Divinity  of  our  Lord  is  no  more  distinctly  an  essential  element  in  the 
fundamental  concept  of  the  Christian  church  than  is  the  spirit  of 
ministration,"  he  declared  in  extreme  but  confident  language.  He 
went  on  to  explain  this  "new  concept"  of  mission  in  graphic  terms : 

Men  who  have  begun  with  no  conscious  call  save  to  declare  the  holiness 
of  the  Lord  have  found  themselves  intensely  occupied  ere  long  with  build- 
ing up  a  highway,  bridging  streams,  leveling  mountains,  draining  morasses, 
gathering  out  the  stone.  John  Wesley,  starting  as  an  evangelist,  soon 
became  a  promoter  of  education  and  a  philanthropist.  .  .  .  General  Booth 
.  .  .  inaugurated  an  army  of  invasion  and  very  quickly  found  it  necessary 
to  establish  also  an  army  of  occupation.  .  .  .  The  picture  of  a  man  with 
the  Bible  standing  on  a  sandy  shore  beneath  a  solitary  palm  tree,  preaching 
to  a  little  group  of  unclothed  savages,  has  given  place  to  photographs  of 
groups  of  children  from  orphanages  and  schools,  and  of  medical  mis- 
sionaries in  their  dispensaries,  and  of  colleges,  hospitals,  and  havens  of 
refuge.^ 

It  may  not  be  inappropriate  for  this  professor  of  missions  to  add  that 
North  was  equally  concerned  with  the  centrality  of  mission  in  the  life 
of  the  Qiurch.  Speaking  for  nine  professors  from  eight  seminaries  of 
five  denominations,  he  wrote  in  1897 : 

We  are  of  the  opinion  that  some  earnest  efforts  should  be  made  to  secure 
more  time  on  the  seminary  curricula  for  instruction  in  the  whole  subject 
of  missions;  that  its  Biblical,  historical,  philosophical,  practical  and  per- 
sonal aspects  should  be  carefully  and  extensively  set  before  seminary 
students,  to  the  end  that  their  affections  may  be  roused  and  that  their  minds 
may  be  educated  to  broad  and  thorough  knowledge  of  the  missionary  spirit 
of  Christianity  and  of  the  development  of  missions  in  the  past  and  the 
present  claim  of  missions  upon  the  ministry  and  upon  all  the  churches  of 
our  Lord.^ 

"The  work  of  the  Gospel  is  one,"  North  told  his  parishioners  as  early 
as  1881,  "whether  at  our  doors  or  at  the  Antipodes.  ...  It  is  not  more 
true  that  Missions  need  us  than  that  we  need  Missions." 

7.  "Comments  on  Dr.  Leonard's  Proposed  New  Departure"  (undated 
memorandum)  ;  Dr.  A.  B.  Leonard,  father  of  Bishop  Leonard,  was  North's 
predecessor  in  the  Board  of  Foreign  Missions  at  the  start  of  this  century. 

8.  "The  New  Era  of  Church  Work  in  the  City  of  New  York,"  The  Christian 
City,  Vol.  IX,  No.  1   (January,  1897),  pp.  1-2. 

9.  Editorial  Notes,  The  Christian  City,  Vol.  IX,  No.  7  (July,  1897),  p.  205. 


66 

IV 

Still  another  arena  for  Frank  Mason  North's  statesmanship  was 
the  ecumenical  movement.  As  early  as  the  eighteen-nineties  he  had 
been  active  in  interdenominational  federations.  With  such  noted 
churchmen  as  Washington  Gladden  and  Josiah  Strong,  he  was  one  of 
the  founders  in  1894  of  the  Open  and  Institutional  Church  League. 
The  "open"  referred  to  their  effort  to  abolish  the  pew  rent  system  as 
inefficient,  undemocratic  and  un-Christian.  The  "institutional"  indi- 
cated an  attempt  to  utilize  church  buildings  during  the  week  for 
social,  recreational  and  educational  programs  of  many  kinds.  Out  of 
this  league  and  other  local  and  national  federations  came  the  planning 
for  a  Federal  Council  of  the  Churches  of  Christ  in  America,  inaugu- 
rated in  1908,  the  forerunner  of  the  present  National  Council  of 
Churches.  As  North  put  it  in  one  of  his  Council  reports  : 

We  waive  no  right  or  privilege,  we  break  with  no  sound  tradition,  we  sur- 
render no  precious  heritage,  but  .  .  .  tlie  Church  has  but  one  inalienable 
right,  the  right  of  finding  Christ  in  the  world  of  today  and  interpreting 
Him  in  all  His  sacrificial  and  triumphant  power  to  that  world.  ...  It  is 
not  in  their  history,  their  traditions,  their  formulae  that  the  churches  of 
Christ  can  be  one;  it  is  alone  in  the  Christ  Himself. 

During  the  first  quadrennium  of  the  council,  Frank  Mason  North 
served  as  chairman  of  the  Commission  on  the  Churches  and  Social 
Service,  under  Bishop  Eugene  R.  Hendrix  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  the  first  Council  President.  From  1912  to  1916  North 
was  Qiairman  of  the  Executive  Committee,  and  in  December,  1916, 
as  the  war  clouds  spread  from  Europe  to  the  United  States,  he  was 
elected  President  of  the  Council  for  a  crucial  four-year  term.  Although 
the  churches  rallied  more  enthusiastically  around  the  war  effort  in 
1917  than  they  have  in  later  years,  North's  was  always  a  voice  of 
restraint,  of  sympathy  for  the  foe,  of  hope  for  world  brotherhood  and 
world  organization  beyond  the  horrors  of  war. 

The  church  press — especially  the  Methodists — hailed  North's  elec- 
tion jubilantly.  The  Central  Christian  Advocate  editoralized :  "When 
the  diplomats  meet  to  decide  the  issues  of  the  war,  in  particular  when 
they  are  debating  how  to  abolish  war,  then  must  the  voice  of  the 
Christianity  of  this  nation  be  heard.  Who  shall  speak  that  word? 
There  is  no  adequate  voice  but  this  Federal  Council  of  the  Churches. 
Who  must  vocalize  that  council?    The  president  thereof."^"    And  the 

10.  Central  Christian  Advocate,  December  20,  1916. 


67 

Christian  Advocate  (of  New  York)  claimed,  with  perhaps  unseemly 
pride:  "Methodism  does  a  real  service  to  the  Federal  Council  of 
Churches  in  providing  it  with  a  president  for  this  quadrennium.  ,  ,  ,We 
may  fairly  congratulate  ourselves  that  Methodism  possessed  the  one 
man  who  could  best  serve  all  the  churches. "^^ 

Attacks  on  the  churches  and  their  councils  for  social  pronounce- 
ments are  not  new.  Contrary  to  some  prevailing  opinion,  they  cannot 
be  blamed  on  modern  times  or  contemporary  personnel.  Frank  Mason 
North  faced  the  same  sort  of  vehement  protests,  and  one  major 
denomination  threatened  to  withdraw  from  the  Federal  Council  at 
its  1916  meeting  on  the  ground  that  speaking  for  the  churches  even 
on  peace  and  prohibition  was  an  "improper  encroachment  upon  the 
sphere  of  the  State".-^^  In  an  interview  soon  after  his  election,  North 
made  his  personal  and  presidential  position  unequivocal : 

There  are  two  perils  in  this  kind  of  work.  One  is  that  the  more  conserva- 
tive church  members,  and  the  more  conservative  churches,  may  think  we 
are  going  outside  our  proper  realm,  if  we  take  any  action  bearing  on 
legislation.  And  you  cannot  go  very  far  in  industrial  work  without  getting 
into  questions  of  legislation.  .  .  .  The  other  danger  is  that  the  more 
extreme  of  the  labor  leaders  will  say,  'Why  don't  the  churches  do  some- 
thing, instead  of  always  talking?'  I  have  always  taken  the  ground  that  the 
church  has  a  right,  at  least,  to  give  active  support  to  legislation  that 
plainly  comes  within  the  Decalogue.  .  .  .^^ 

Still  more  bluntly  North  had  written  in  1898 :  "It  is  neither  socialism 
nor  paternalism  for  the  Christian  body  to  demand  of  government  just 
provision  for  the  physical  and  social  welfare  of  the  people  whom,  in 
God's  name,  it  governs."^'* 

Within  a  month  after  America's  declaration  of  war  in  1917,  the 
Federal  Council  of  Churches  called  a  special  meeting  in  Washington, 
with  John  R.  Mott,  Robert  E.  Speer,  and  Henry  Churchill  King 
among  the  principal  speakers.  In  his  Presidential  Address  North 
declared :  "I  believe  the  greatest  need  of  the  great  American  Church 
today  is  a  realization  of  the  immediate,  constant,  indwelling  presence 
and  power  of  the  personal  Christ."  The  Council's  message  on  "The 
Duty  of  the  Church  in  this  Hour  of  National  Need"  affirmed :  "We 
enter  the  war  without  haste  or  passion,  not  for  private  or  national 

11.  Christian  Advocate,  December  14,  1916. 

12.  The  Presbyterian  (Richmond),  December  27,  1916. 

13.  Interview  by  Carlos  Hurd  (undated  clipping,  1916  or  early  1917). 
U.The  Christian  City,  Vol.  X,  No.  10  (October,  1898),  p.  650. 


68 

gain,  with  no  hatred  or  bitterness  against  those  with  whom  we  con- 
tend."i5 

Very  shortly  after  the  Armistice,  Frank  Mason  North  journeyed  to 
Europe  on  a  multiple  mission :  to  survey  opportunities  for  expanded 
Methodist  work,  especially  in  France ;  to  inspire  and  coordinate  relief 
and  rehabilitation  programs;  and  to  deliver  to  the  Versailles  Peace 
Conference  the  Federal  Council  of  Churches'  appeal  for  a  League  of 
Free  Nations  as  "the  political  expression  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  on 
earth".  So  generously  did  Christians  in  America  respond  to  relief 
needs  in  devastated  Europe  that  Herbert  Hoover  as  administrator  sent 
an  official  letter  of  gratitude,  and  North  and  his  General  Secretary, 
Charles  S.  Macfarland,  were  awarded  high  national  honors  by  France 
and  Greece.  In  all  the  practical  details  of  war-time  responsibility. 
North  kept  constantly  in  mind  the  ecumenical  dream,  the  underlying 
questions — 

whether  the  inheritance  of  the  splendid  but  narrow  conscience  of  our 
fathers  necessarily  creates  for  us  a  proper  barrier  between  ourselves  and 
Christians  of  another  name;  whether,  after  all,  the  essentials  in  which  we 
are  all  one,  if  they  are  really  set  on  fire,  may  not  burn  the  barriers  away 
and  give  us  a  common  life  in  the  fellowship  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. ^^ 

Two  days  before  his  seventieth  birthday  Frank  Mason  North 
turned  over  the  presidency  of  the  Federal  Council  of  Churches  to 
another  ecumenical  statesman,  Robert  E.  Speer.  In  his  valedictory 
North  rejected  "the  lure  of  the  reminiscence"  in  these  words:  "The 
backward  glance  belongs  to  leisure,  not  to  action  .  .  .  better  the  mood  of 
the  starting  post  than  that  of  the  goal.  These  have  been  years  of 
experiment  and  discipline — now  for  the  race."  But  he  went  on  to  list 
four  outstanding  assets  of  the  Federal  Council  as  he  had  found  them 
in  twelve  years  of  intimate  association  : 

(1)  a  high  estimate  of  personality,  in  which  oneness  of  faith  and 
logic  of  action  overcome  most  differences ; 

(2)  a  self-testing  by  three  sins  of  mind  and  will  which  Christ 
condemned:  intolerance  (aggressive  or  indifferent),  intellectual  pride 
(or  Pharisaism),  covetousness  (grasp  of  power)  ; 

(3)  values  of  denominational  life  recognized,  not  denied  or 
ignored ; 

(4)  the  essential  oneness  of  the  churches  affirmed  in  the  charter, 

15.  Charles  S.  Macfarland,  Christian  Unity  in  the  Making  (New  York: 
Federal  Council  of  Churches,  1948),  pp.  124-128. 

16.  Manuscript  of  an  address  delivered  on  February  22,  1918. 


69 

yet  acknowledging  that  "it  [the  Council]  has  received  no  mandate 
from  its  constituents  to  promote  organic  union  or  a  common  creedal 
statement." 

"The  good  of  all  must  come  not  by  the  negation  but  by  the  affirma- 
tion of  the  values  of  each,"  he  declared  in  an  aphorism  as  appropriate 
for  the  ecumenical  movement  today. -^^ 

V 

For  four  years  more  North  continued  to  direct  the  Methodist 
Board  of  Foreign  Missions,  and  retained  an  advisory  capacity  still 
longer.  In  the  last  decade,  before  his  death  in  1935,  he  taught  mis- 
sions at  Drew  University  (which  his  father  had  helped  to  found), 
began  a  history  of  Methodist  missions, ^^  and  continued  to  serve 
actively  on  various  boards  and  agencies.  In  his  eighty-third  year  he 
presented  to  the  Federal  Council  a  revised  Social  Creed.  This  com- 
mittee report  included  among  progressive  new  provisions,  just  prior 
to  Franklin  Roosevelt's  New  Deal :  freedom  to  dispense  birth  control 
information,  recognition  of  broader  grounds  for  divorce,  "wider  and 
fairer  distribution  of  wealth",  social  insurance,  and  "social  control  of 
the  economic  process". 

Although  he  seldom  used  the  term  "Social  Gospel",  Frank  Mason 
North  was  unquestionably  Methodism's  greatest  spokesman  for  that 
period  and  that  outlook.  Although  he  shared  the  humanitarian  con- 
cern and  the  progressive  optimism  of  that  day,  he  never  deserved  the 
caricatures  of  the  Social  Gospel  which  have  often  been  drawn.  His 
personal  faith  and  his  concept  of  the  Church's  task  were  always 
Christocentric,  as  earlier  quotations  have  indicated.  In  one  of  his 
most  powerful  addresses  he  declared  that  the  mission  of  Jesus  was  not 
"the  satisfaction  of  the  outraged  justice  of  God,"  not  "to  select  from 
humanity  some  chosen  spirits  [for]  a  new  commonwealth  of  the  skies," 
not  to  "upbuild  upon  the  earth  an  institution  to  conserve  his  truth" — 
but  "a  mission  to  humanity  ...  to  establish  a  Kingdom  of  God,  that  is, 
the  reign  of  God  in  human  hearts  and  so  in  human  life  and  institu- 
tions." If  that  is  the  true  meaning  of  salvation,  it  is  even  more  the 
Christian  mission  in  the  world. 

To  this  mission  Frank  Mason  North  gave  himself  through  a  long 
lifetime :  in  his  pastoral  ministry,  in  his  work  amid  urban  slums  and 

17.  Manuscript  of  an  address  by  the  retiring  President,  December  1,  1920. 

18.  Cf.  History  of  Methodist  Missions,  first  three  of  six  projected  volumes 
edited  bv  Wade  Crawford  Barclay  (New  York:  Methodist  Board  of  Missions, 
1949-1957). 


70 

settlement  houses,  in  directing  the  world  outreach  of  the  Methodist 
Church,  in  strengthening  the  bonds  of  Christian  unity.  It  may  be  an 
oversimplification  but  it  is  not  inaccurate  to  say  that  while  Walter 
Rauschenbusch  taught  the  Social  Gospel  in  Rochester  Seminary,  while 
Washington  Gladden  preached  it  in  Columbus,  Ohio,  Frank  Mason 
North  practiced  it  on  the  sidewalks  of  New  York. 

But  it  is  safe  to  predict  that,  when  all  of  his  social  and  institutional 
and  ecumenical  achievements  are  forgotten,  Oiristians  of  many  races 
and  creeds  will  be  singing  the  greatest  of  North's  poems,  appropriately 
entitled  "A  Prayer  for  the  Multitudes".  He  did  write  other  stirring 
hymns  besides  those  contained  in  The  Methodist  Hymnal.  One  of  his 
earliest,  "Jesus,  the  calm  that  fills  my  breast"  (1884),  included  in  the 
1905  Hymnal,  was  dropped  in  1935,  to  the  profound  regret  of  mis- 
sionaries and  others  who  still  to  this  day  protest  its  omission.  North's 
last  two  published  poems  commemorate  outstanding  events  in  Ameri- 
can Methodism:  the  sailing  of  Melville  Cox  to  Africa  in  1832  ("The 
Anniversary  Hymn")^^  and   "The   Christmas   Conference,    1784"-'^. 

It  is  "Where  Cross  the  Crowded  Ways  of  Life"  (also  called  "The 
City  Hymn"),  however,  which  proclaims  the  central  tenet  of  North's 
faith :  that  behind  the  common  human  concern  for  wretchedness  and 
need,  for  famished  souls  and  burdened  toil,  stands  the  loving  kindness 
of  the  Son  of  God  who  is  also  Son  of  Man.  (North  deplored  the  error, 
committed  often  today,  of  skipping  to  the  last  stanza,  for  without  the 
preceding  one,  it  contains  no  subject,  no  independent  verb,  no 
Master!)  The  cup  of  water  is  not  enough  unless  it  helps  men  to  see 
His  grace.  The  welfare  programs,  the  civil  rights,  the  ministries  of 
teaching  and  healing,  all  are  essential  expressions  of  Christ's  mission. 
But  the  Church  fails  in  its  task  if  through  them  it  does  not  help  the 
multitudes  to  see  "the  sweet  compassion  of  [His]  face". 

\9.  Carrying  Christ  to  Africa  (Norfolk:  Committee  on  Historical  Pamphlet, 
1958),  p.  29. 

20.  Zion's  Herald,  September  26,  1934,  cover. 


The  Dearths  Discourse 


FRANKLIN  SIMPSON  HICKMAN 

FRANKLIN  SIMPSON  HICKMAN  passed  from  this  mortal 
scene,  characteristically,  without  ostentation  and  with  but  slender  prior 
notice  to  his  attending  wife  and  friends.  He  went  quietly  but  deci- 
sively, as  he  had  done  in  life.  The  place  of  his  departure  was  Angola, 
Indiana,  where,  with  Mrs.  Hickman,  who  survives  him,  he  had  made 
his  home  on  809  West  Maumee  Street  since  his  retirement  in  1953. 

The  life  and  work  of  Frank  S.  Hickman  belong  to  and  are  wrought 
into  the  founding  years  and  early  development  of  Duke  University. 
Coming  as  he  did  to  the  faculty  of  the  Divinity  School  in  1927,  in  the 
second  year  of  its  establishment,  he  was  a  prominent,  high-minded,  and 
steady  contributor  to  its  institutional  and  instructional  development 
until  his  service  of  twenty-six  years  terminated  in  an  emeritus  status 
September  1,  1953.  During  the  earlier  years  he  served  as  professor 
both  of  Preaching  and  of  the  Psychology  of  Religion.  In  the  latter 
field  he  had  received  his  doctorate  of  philosophy  from  Northwestern 
University  in  1923.  While  his  formal  instruction  in  preaching  was 
finally  relinquished  in  the  early  forties,  he  continued  until  his  retire- 
ment to  instruct  in  the  psychology  of  religion,  and,  from  the  pulpit  of 
Duke  University  Chapel,  he  maintained  in  an  exemplary  way  his 
notable  mastery  of  pulpit  utterance  and  style. 

Dr.  Hickman  was,  it  should  be  remembered,  and  in  collaboration 
with  the  late  President  William  Preston  Few,  the  creator  of  the 
powerful  order  of  Christian  worship  in  the  then  new  Duke  University 
Chapel.  He  was  the  first  of  Duke's  "Preachers  to  the  University"  and 
the  first  Dean  of  the  Chapel,  which  title  and  responsibilities  he 
relinquished  in  1948.  In  the  zenith  of  his  powers  he  was  doubtless 
among  the  most  eminent  university  preachers  of  the  day  and,  certainly, 
of  the  entire  Southeastern  region.  And  when  he  came  in  1945  to 
welcome  a  colleague  to  the  University  pulpit  in  the  person  of  Dr. 
James  T.  Cleland,  he  received  his  fellow  preacher  with  entire  glad- 
ness and  grace  that  was  never  failing. 

On  his  retirement  as  Dean  of  the  Chapel  in  1948  a  Resolution  of 
the  Church  Board  contained  the  following  summary  words :  "To  Dr. 
Hickman  all  of  us  are  today  deeply  indebted  for  our  opportunities  in 
religious  worship  and  service.  We  herein  acknowledge  the  debt  we 
owe,  and  acclaim  his  works  among  us.   And  finally,  we  resolve  that 


n 

we  to  whom  some  portion  of  his  responsibilities  may  now  have  passed, 
shall  fulfill  our  charge  with  his  exemplary  fidelity  and  devotion." 

Frank  Hickman  was  born  September  14,  1886,  in  Fort  Wayne, 
Indiana,  of  parents  of  stalwart  but  humble  circumstances.  He  was 
graduated  with  the  A.B.  degree  in  1917  from  DePauw  University, 
and  from  Boston  University  School  of  Theology  with  the  S.T.B.  in 
1920.  His  ministry  had  begun  in  1911,  when  he  was  admitted  on  trial 
in  the  North  Indiana  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 
There  he  served  a  number  of  pastoral  appointments.  Before  he  came 
to  Duke  Divinity  School,  he  had  also  served  as  instructor  in  the 
Chicago  Training  School  for  City,  Home,  and  Foreign  Missions, 
1920-24,  and  Hamlin  University,  1924-25.  Occasional  teaching  ap- 
pointments in  subsequent  years  included  Emory  University,  Hampton 
Institute,  Iliff  School  of  Theology,  and,  during  his  one  sabbatical  leave 
from  Duke  University,  a  semester  of  teaching  at  Soochow  University, 
China,  in  the  spring  of  1937. 

Author  of  a  number  of  books  on  the  psychological  approach  to 
religion,  Frank  Hickman  also  made  a  considerable  literary  contribu- 
tion to  the  subject  of  education  and  religion  and,  from  1943  to  1965, 
he  provided  a  devotional  column  entitled  "Just  a  Minute"  for  the 
Durham  Morning  Herald.  This  appeared  daily  for  twenty-two  years 
to  the  edification  of  very  many  people.  He  was  the  father  and  founder 
in  1931  of  the  Phillips  Brooks  Club,  an  interdenominational  society  of 
faculty  and  ministers  devoted  to  ecumenical  discussion  that  continued 
a  lively  and  valued  existence  for  well  over  two  decades. 

In  the  earlier  days  of  his  retirement  he  maintained  his  scholarly 
studies,  working  at  two  manuscripts  which  were  never  finished — one 
entitled  Ecce  Homo  and  another  on  the  meaning  of  imitatio  Christi, 
which  profoundly  engaged  his  interest  from  the  psychological  but 
also  from  the  ethical  point  of  view. 

Dr.  Hickman  was  trained  in  the  era  of  "liberal  theology". 
Probably  he  never  saw  cause  to  pass  beyond  that  general  standpoint. 
All  the  same,  his  Christianity  belonged  to  the  classical  tradition  of 
Protestant  evangelical  piety.  He  was,  perhaps,  above  all  a  man  of 
character  and  a  churchman  whose  affiance  to  Christ  was  a  personal 
realization  and  whose  concern  and  service  to  his  fellows  was  an 
axiom  of  Christian  profession.  When  he  spoke  or  preached,  one  could 
hear  echoes  of  the  thunders  of  Sinai  and  the  limpid  sureties  of  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount.  Here  was  a  man  of  personal  sensitivity  with 
a  sure  and  unfaltering  commitment  to  the  main  pillars  of  the  Christian 
message. 


n 

As  I  knew  him  and  remember  him  with  gratitude,  I  am  sensible 
that  the  same  centrahties  were  the  woven  fabric  of  a  dedicated  mind, 
a  resolute  will,  and  a  purposeful  and  consecrated  life.  In  him  was  the 
living  granite  of  a  Protestant  American  tradition  that  knew  its  own 
mind.  He  is  remembered  with  tenderness,  with  admiration,  and  with 
utter  respect.  About  his  manner  and  his  mind  there  was  a  transparent 
nobility  that  was  not  dimmed  despite  life's  exigencies  and  attendant 
disappointments. 

He  left  his  mark  upon  this  University  and  upon  colleagues  and 
generations  of  students.  His  final  official  act  as  professor  of  the 
Divinity  School  was  his  address  to  the  graduating  class  Sunday 
evening.  May  31,  1953.  He  recalled  a  circumstance  of  his  student  days 
at  Boston  University — the  unveiling  of  an  artist's  portrait  of  Christ 
with  a  finely  painted  scroll  bearing  the  words,  "As  the  Father  hath  sent 
me,  even  so  I  send  you."  It  was  a  valedictory.  He  had  fought  a  good 
fight.  He  was  now  fully  authorized  to  invite  his  students  into  the  suc- 
cession in  which  he  had  valiantly  served. 

Yet  the  breadth  and  largeness  of  his  mind  is  perhaps  ever  so 
visible  in  the  following  quotation  that  remains  seasonable  for  us  today. 
It  is  from  a  sermon  preached  in  Duke  Chapel  in  the  fall  of  1951,  and 
it  was  a  memorial  sermon  for  Dr.  Elbert  Russell,  then  recently 
deceased  and  under  whose  deanship  Dr.  Hickman  had  served  1928-41 : 

In  such  a  time  as  ours  institutional  religion  is  not  enough.  What 
matters  it  that  we  build  great  churchly  systems,  and  that  we  adorn  our 
services  of  worship  with  all  manner  of  high  ritual,  if  there  be  no  living 
light  on  the  altar  of  every  believer's  heart?  In  our  Protestant  world  a 
new  spirit  is  beginning  to  stir ;  it  gives  evidence  of  rising  into  a  mighty 
movement.  I  refer  to  the  spirit  of  restlessness  with  respect  to  the 
divisions  so  sadly  evident  in  our  Christian  world,  the  rising  desire  for 
some  sort  of  unity  which  shall  heal  our  schisms  and  enable  us  to  present 
a  common  front  to  the  paganism  of  our  times.  We  do  not  deny  that  the 
various  denominations  have  served  great  and  worthy  purposes.  We 
do  not  deny  that  there  ought  to  be  some  variety  in  church  organiza- 
tion and  order  of  worship,  to  fit  the  wide  diversity  of  human  nature 
and  culture  to  which  Christianity  makes  its  appeal.  But  Protestantism 
nevertheless  seeks  for  some  underlying  spirit  of  unity  which  shall  send 
its  life  out  through  all  the  divergent  branches  of  the  Protestant  Christian 
Church.  There  must  arise  in  all  parts  of  the  Christian  world  a  new 
spirit  of  brotherhood  rooted  deep  in  the  life  of  Christ  our  elder 
Brother,  and  giving  evidence  of  its  oneness  in  a  suffering  world  by  the 
light  which  it  sheds  upon  all  our  dark  and  baffling  problems. 

Perhaps  it  will  serve  best  to  conclude  this  retrospect  with  the 


74 

Resolution  of  the  Faculty  of  the  Divinity  School,  presented  to  Frank 
Hickman  on  the  eve  of  his  retirement : 

Circumstances  provide  from  time  to  time  occasion  to  speak  more 
openly  of  the  quiet  sentiments  with  which  we  live  from  day  to  day. 
This  is  such  an  occasion. 

So  to  you,  Frank  Hickman,  our  colleague  of  many  years,  we  of  the 
Divinity  faculty  are  moved  to  make  expressive  our  tribute,  on  this  oc- 
casion of  your  retirement  from  our  midst  and  from  the  round  of  duties 
that  have  so  long  been  our  common  responsibility. 

Successive  milestones  are  reminders  of  the  journey  already  achieved. 
We  remember  now  your  long  and  worthy  service,  more  than  a  quarter 
of  a  century  of  the  highest  devotion  to  a  challenging  duty.  Perhaps 
with  a  little  surprise,  we  realize  that  your  service  to  our  beloved 
Divinity  School  extends  almost  from  the  beginning,  for  she  was  born 
only  a  year  before  you  came  to  help  nourish  her  life.  You  have  been 
among  those  who  especially  endured  the  burden  and  heat  of  the  day. 
What  our  young  school  has  so  far  attained  is  due  in  part  to  the  full 
share  you  have  so  admirably  contributed. 

We  remember  especially  your  versatility,  upon  which  the  young 
school  laid  claim.  In  a  day  when  our  faculty  numbered  fewer,  you 
responded  to  the  need  to  develop  several  areas  of  instruction  and  train- 
ing. And  when  especially  there  came  the  day  of  dedication  of  our 
glorious  University  Chapel,  in  the  fall  of  1932,  we  remember  that  it 
was  you  who  first  served  as  its  Dean  and  who  through  difficult,  forma- 
tive years  led  in  the  development  of  its  services  and  subsequently  in  the 
establishment  of  the  University  Church.  .  .  . 

We  remember  that  it  was  your  initiative  that  founded  the  Phillips 
Brooks  Club  in  1931.  In  characteristic  generosity  with  time  and  energy, 
you  extended  the  service  of  our  school  to  many  preachers  in  the  field. 
Through  depression  and  war,  your  devotion  to  this  effective  organiza- 
tion has  been  unflagging  even  to  the  present  hour.  The  gratitude  of 
many  ministers  belonging  to  a  number  of  denominations  throughout 
this  area,  is  witness  enough  to  the  extended  influence  you  have 
exerted.  .  .  . 

So,  through  the  years,  as  teacher  and  preacher,  the  labors  you  have 
so  conscientiously  performed  laid  a  foundation  for  the  upbuilding  of 
school  and  church  within  and  beyond  the  University  community. 
Always  you  have  held  a  noble  conception  of  our  purposes,  maintained 
a  discipline  in  the  life  of  learning,  and  proclaimed  the  essentials  for 
the  life  of  the  spirit. 

But  memory  goes  beyond  our  official  life  together,  to  the  cherished 
recollections  of  personal  associations  through  the  years.  We  remember 
picnics  together  in  the  open  air,  visits  in  your  home,  and  the  charm  and 
hospitality  extended  to  us  all.  Nor  is  all  of  our  tribute  reserved  for  you 
alone,  Frank,  for  men  know  always — and  sometimes  admit — how  great 
a  part  wives  play  in  their  achievements.  In  praising  you,  we  praise  your 
wife,  Veva;  and  here  especially  our  wives  join  us.  You  have  both 
become  so  nuich  a  part  of  our  coninumity  that  we  shall  all  miss  you 
both.  .  .  . 


FOCUS    ON 
FACULTY 


DONALD  J.  WELCH,  Assistant  to  the  Dean : 

It  was  my  privilege  to  be  a  member  of  the  last  class  in  Psychology 
of  Religion  taught  b}-  the  late  Professor  Frank  S.  Hickman.  Many 
readers  may  recall  that  one  of  the  requirements  of  the  course  was  a 
"spiritual  autobiography".  Except  for  the  usual  biographical  material 
furnished  to  college  and  university  news  bureaus,  this  course  require- 
ment was  my  last  attempt  to  write  about  myself.  I  hope  to  avoid  the 
mistake  made  by  a  classmate  of  mine  who  entitled  his  paper  for  Profes- 
sor Hickman,  "From  Childhood  to  Adultery,  The  Story  of  My  Life." 
My  life  began  in  childhood  but  thus  far  it  has  reached  no  such  exciting 
or  morally  unacceptable  climax. 

We  were  a  family  of  eight  children,  two  parents,  and  a  grand- 
mother who  all  lived  together  in  Ashland,  Kentucky.  I  was  the  sixth 
child  of  a  bookkeeper  for  a  steel  mill.  My  father  was  not  only  able  to 
provide  food  and  clothing  for  his  large  family  in  the  midst  of  the 
depression,  but,  as  the  choir  director  and  treasurer  of  the  Methodist 
Church  across  the  street,  he  made  sure  that  all  of  us  were  nurtured  by 
its  Sunday  School,  converted  by  its  evangelists,  and  bored  by  its  mini- 
sters. We  each  in  turn  sang  in  the  choir  and  served  as  officers  in  the 
Methodist  Youth  Fellowship.  The  fact  that  of  all  eight  children  only  I 
found  a  vocation  in  the  ministry  of  the  church  is  one  of  the  greatest 
arguments  ever  mounted  against  the  deterministic  doctrine  of  behav- 
iorism. 

I  entered  Union  College  in  Kentucky  in  1948 ;  there  I  majored  in 
history  and  minored  in  a  job  as  youth  and  choir  director  in  a  nearby 
Methodist  Church. 

Throughout  college  I  rarely  deviated  from  a  ministerial  career,  but 
toward  the  end  of  my  senior  year  I  was  excited  by  the  prospect  of  a 
three-year  term  of  service  in  India  as  a  short-term  missionary  for  the 
Methodist  Church.  I  promptly  applied  and  began  my  training  in 
Hartford,  Connecticut,  during  the  summer  of  1952.  The  summer 
ended  and  I  waited  patiently  for  a  visa  from  the  young  nation  of  India. 
Since  I  had  no  qualifications  other  than  my  youthful  desire  to 
propagate  the  Christian  faith,  Mr.  Nehru's  government,  with  a  legiti- 


76 

mate  fear  of  the  massive  influx  of  Western  missionaries,  delayed  my 
visa.  I  spent  the  fall  as  a  traveling  secretary  for  the  Student  Volunteer 
Movement,  recruiting  missionaries  from  college  campuses  throughout 
the  south.  In  February,  1953,  I  gave  up  my  wanderlust  and  entered 
Duke  Divinity  School,  from  which  I  graduated  in  the  summer  of  1955. 

I  have  always  had  a  peculiar  concern  for  the  people  of  Appalachia ; 
therefore,  1  returned  with  my  wife  (the  former  Mary  Nancy  Wilder, 
whom  I  had  married  during  my  last  year  at  Duke)  to  Kentucky,  where 
I  became  pastor  in  a  small  mountain  town,  the  seat  of  a  Baptist  Col- 
lege. My  future  became  apparent.  As  much  as  I  loved  the  pastorate, 
I  was  destined  to  be  drawn  away.  First,  I  assumed  part-time  responsi- 
bilities as  an  instructor  in  music  at  Cumberland  College.  (The  bizarre 
details  of  this  incident  would  make  a  good  novel.)  Soon  I  was  com- 
muting sixty  miles  three  times  each  week  as  a  part-time  instructor  in 
Religion  and  Philosophy  at  Union  College.  After  three  years,  I 
became  Dean  of  Men  of  that  institution  and  later  changed  my  status 
to  that  of  campus  minister  and  Assistant  Professor  of  Religion  and 
Philosophy.  With  no  academic  qualifications  beyond  my  Duke  B.D.,  I 
saw  no  future  in  the  academic  world  and  made  one  last  try  to  return 
to  the  pastorate  in  Berea,  Kentucky,  where  I  also  served  as  Wesley 
Foundation  Director  at  Berea  College,  but,  alas,  I  was  soon  teaching 
again  as  a  visiting  lecturer  in  Religion  and  Philosophy. 

If  anyone  has  read  the  above  with  an  idea  of  finding  some  qualifica- 
tions for  an  Assistant  to  the  Dean  of  a  Divinity  School,  he  will  have 
as  much  difticulty  as  I  have  had  in  figuring  why  I  am  here.  Perhaps 
I  should  write  a  volume  on  "How  to  be  a  Theological  Seminary 
Administrator  without  Really  Trying."  On  the  other  hand,  there  is 
a  job  to  be  done  here,  and,  as  I  have  found  in  every  other  appointment, 
the  task  is  exciting  and  challenging.  I  cannot  imagine  anyone  who 
could  possibly  believe  that  God  has  destined  him  to  be  an  Assistant  to 
the  Dean,  and  yet  I  have  believed  this  about  every  other  appointment  I 
have  held.  Why  stop  now  ? 


LOOKS 
^^BOOKS 


The  Reformation:  A  Narrative  History  Related  by  Contemporary  Observers 
and  Participants.  Edited  and  introduced  by  Hans  J.  Hillerbrand.  Harper  & 
Row.   1964.  495  pp.  $7.50. 

Professor  Hillerbrand  has  provided  students  of  the  Reformation  with  a 
scholarly  as  well  as  lively  narrative  account  of  the  period  by  having  con- 
temporary participants  and  observers  relate  in  English  the  important  events.  But 
this  is  more  than  a  source  book  of  readings.  To  bring  all  the  selections  together 
into  a  coherent  and  meaningful  story,  the  editor  presents  his  materials  in  con- 
ventional chapters,  providing  each  one  with  an  introduction  which  lays  the  back- 
ground and  explains  the  roles  played  by  each  of  the  narrators.  He  gives  each 
source,  in  turn,  a  heading  which  connects  the  new  statement  with  what  has 
preceded.  The  introductions  alone  comprise  an  account  of  the  period  of  consider- 
able length. 

Recent  interests  and  concerns  are  reflected  in  Hillerbrand's  choice  of  docu- 
ments. In  addition  to  the  usual  selections,  he  has  a  solid  chapter  on  the  "Radical 
Reform  Movements,"  in  which  he  has  many  representatives  of  the  left-wing 
reformers  speak  for  themselves,  and  one  on  "Catholic  Response  and  Renewal," 
which  he  treats  not  only  as  a  Counter  Reformation  but  also  as  a  reform  move- 
ment reaching  back  into  the  fifteenth  century.  The  selection  of  sources  was  made 
with  such  great  care  that  one  misses  few  of  one's  favorites. 

Although  there  is  a  certain  unevenness  because  the  author  uses  English  trans- 
lations and  sixteenth-century  English  documents  from  various  sources  and 
provides  us  with  a  number  of  new  translations  of  his  own,  one's  interest  is  sus- 
tained throughout  the  book.  Its  value  is  enhanced  by  good  bibliographies  and 
the  use  of  more  than  sixty  illustrations,  including  contemporary  oil  portraits, 
cartoons,  woodcuts,  and  documents.  It  deserves  to  be  widely  read  by  laymen 
as  well  as  by  Reformation  students. 

— Harold  J.  Grimm 
The  Ohio  State  University 

History  of  Philosophy:  Selected  Readings.  George  L.  Abernethy  and  Thomas 
A.  Langford,  eds.   Dickenson.  1965.   620  pp. 

Professor  Abernethy  of  Davidson  College  and  Professor  Langford,  Chairman 
of  the  Department  of  Religion  at  Duke  and  former  Instructor  in  the  Divinity 
School,  have  again  co-operated  to  produce  a  collection  of  readings  from  primary 
sources  designed  to  serve  as  a  textbook  for  undergraduate  college  instruction. 
Unlike  their  previous  editorial  collaboration  (Philosophy  of  Religion:  A  Book 
of  Readings.  Macmillan.  1962),  this  book  does  not  undertake  to  bring  the 
reader  all  the  way  to  the  contemporary  scene.  Usual  course-outlines  as  well  as 
the  great  scope  of  potentially  relevant  material  have  dictated  the  terminus  of  the 
material  in  the  nineteenth  century.  The  selections  run  from  Thales  to  J.  S.  Mill, 
including  representations  of  twenty-one  major  figures  in  addition  to  a  number 
of  the  Pre-Socratic  and  Hellenistic  philosophers. 

Whenever  one  browses  through  any  collection  of  readings,  he  will  almost 
inevitably  note  that  a  few  of  his  own  "pets"  are  missing.    In  this  case  the 


78 

reviewer  noted  the  omission  of  Lucretius  and  Pascal  as  well  as  the  absence  of 
any  excerpts  from  Plato's  Apology  and  of  the  central  passages  expressive  of 
Kant's  contributions  (negative  and  positive)  to  philosophical  theology. 

Nevertheless  this  work  on  the  whole  meets  quite  well  the  three  major 
requirements  of  a  textbook  of  readings:  (1)  over-all  balance  of  figures  chosen, 
(2)  representativeness  and  centrality  of  passages  selected,  and  (3)  adequacy  of 
translations  used.  An  added  bonus  is  the  brief  bibliography  of  relevant  paper- 
back works  included  at  the  end  of  each  section. 

Even  the  reader  with  "no  background"  in  the  subject  matter  may,  through 
the  guidance  of  some  standard  secondary  textbook  (several  of  which  are  avail- 
able in  paperbacks  :  e.g.,  the  Harper  Torchbook  two-volume  edition  of  Windel- 
band's  A  History  of  Philosophy),  find  in  a  thoughtful  study  of  these  passages  an 
exciting  enrichment  of  both  the  scope  and  depth  of  his  understanding  of  our 
common  Western  heritage  of  thought. 

— Charles  K.  Robinson 


Worship   in   Scripture   and    Tradition.    Edited   by    Massey    H.    Shepherd,    Jr. 
Oxford.  1963.   x,  178  pp.  $4.50. 

There  are  two  reasons  why  this  book  means  much  to  me,  and  the  same 
reasons  apply  to  you  our  alumni.  First,  three  of  the  seven  authors  are  Duke  men : 
two  at  present  on  the  Divinity  School  faculty,  one  a  former  member  and  a  Ph.D. 
graduate.  (These  three  essayists  have  inscribed  my  review  copy  with  a  personal 
and  appreciated  greeting.)  Moreover,  another  has  been  a  Gray  Lecturer.  Your 
loyal  interest  should  be  aroused. 

Second,  this  book  is  great  stuff.  It  is  a  compilation  of  papers  by  members 
of  the  Theological  Commission  on  Worship  (North  American  Section)  of  the 
Commission  on  Faith  and  Order  of  the  World  Council  of  Churches.  Joseph 
Sittler,  of  the  University  of  Chicago,  writes  the  Introduction,  stressing  the 
meaning  of  worship :  specific  recollection  for  repetition  and  renewal ;  cultic 
recovery  in  variety  and  unity ;  theological  insight  which  transcends  the  preposi- 
tional.   These  six  pages  should  be  read  six  times. 

Dean  Cushman,  with  clarity  and  pungency,  elucidates  the  idea  of  "Worship  as 
Acknowledgment,"  the  acknowledgment  of  God  which  is  both  the  alternative  to 
self-affirmation  and  the  sublimation  of  self-affirmation.  Man,  in  worship,  consents 
to  the  higher  sovereignty  which  fulfills  his  own  personhood  within  a  covenant 
community.  Consent  leads  to  responsibility,  to  the  obedience  of  the  v^hole  life 
both  in  ethical  living  and  in  liturgical  exercises.  Worship  is  the  celebration  of 
the  fulness  of  our  willing  sacrifice  to  God  and  man.  Such  an  essay  makes  one 
wish  that  Robert  Cushman  were  in  two  persons :  one  in  the  Dean's  office,  the 
other  in  the  classroom. 

Professor  Rylaarsdam,  of  the  University  of  Chicago,  roots  Christian  worship 
in  the  Old  Testament  ("The  Matrix  of  Worship  in  the  Old  Testament"),  and 
then  gently  scolds  the  churches  for  forgetting  the  cultic,  corporate,  objective, 
theo-centric,  this-wordly  emphasis  of  Judaism,  due  to  the  influx  of  pietistic, 
personal  "experience"  and  false  optimism. 

Frank  Young  of  Princeton  University,  still  a  Duke  man  at  heart,  delighted  us 
this  year  with  a  lecture  on  worship  in  the  New  Testament.  If  you  did  not  hear 
him,  you  may  read  some  of  his  reflections  in  the  essay,  "The  Theological  Con- 
text of  New  Testament  Worship".  He  shook  us  with  his  thesis  that  there  was 
no  Christian  holy  place,  spatially.  God  is  present  wherever  the  believer  is.  The 
primary  actor  is  God  revealed  in  Jesus  Christ,  "crucified-risen-coming,"  who  is 
met  in  the  world.   (I'm  not  quite  sure  what  this  does  to  the  building  of  churches). 

Fred  Herzog  and  I  have  had  a  running  battle,  in  love,  on  his  chapter :  "The 


79 

Norm  and  Freedom  of  Christian  Worship."  With  scholarship  and  gentle 
insistence,  he  establishes  his  norm :  "Primarily  important  is  the  death  of  Jesus." 
I  just  don't  believe  it !  Primarily  important,  for  me,  is  the  resurrection  of  Jesus. 
But  I  know  why  he  wrote  what  he  wrote,  and  I  sympathize  with  him.  He  is 
protesing  against  a  comfy,  all-is-well,  pain-avoiding,  Easter-without-Good-Friday 
cultus.  He  is  tired  of  aesthetic  glamor  and  longs  for  holy  sacrifice.  Can  we 
blame  him? 

Massey  Shepherd,  the  editor,  who  probably  knows  more  about  worship  than 
any  other  Protestant  in  the  U.S.A.,  writes  on  "The  Origin  of  the  Church's 
Liturgy".  Here  is  history  made  vivid.  How  can  any  one  man  know  as  much  as 
he  knows,  and  how  can  anyone  transmit  it  to  a  reader  so  interestingly  and  ar- 
restingly  ? 

The  last  essay,  by  Alexander  Schmemann  of  St.  Vladimir's  Orthodox  Semi- 
nary, "Theology  and  Liturgical  Tradition",  battles  the  old-new  problem  of  the 
primacy  of  "liturgical  theology"  or  "the  theology  of  liturgy",  pitting  each  against 
the  other  in  an  exciting  debate.  Is  liturgy  the  living  source  of  theology,  or  is 
liturgy  the  object  of  theological  inquiry  and  definition?  He  accepts  neither 
alternative.  For  him  "liturgical  tradition  ...  is  the  ontological  condition  of 
theology"  (175).  The  job  of  theology  is  to  purify  the  liturgy;  the  job  of  the 
liturgy  is  to  give  back  to  theology  "that  eschatological  fulness  which  the  liturgy 
alone  can  'actualize'."    This  essay  should  be  read  seven  times. 

Do  you  want  a  book  on  worship  which  will  be  forever  on  your  shelves  and 
often  on  your  desk?    This  is  it — written  for  professionals,  for  folk  like  us. 

— James  T.  Cleland 


80 


Theological  Transition  in  American 
Methodism,  1790-1935.  Robert  E. 
Chiles.  Abingdon.   1965.  238  pp.  $4. 

A  living  faith,  even  though  rooted 
in  an  historic  event,  must  bear  its 
fruit  amid  the  changing  cults  and  cul- 
tures of  mankind.  If  it  is  to  retain  its 
hold  on  the  soil,  and  especially  if  it  is 
to  take  over  new  territory,  it  must 
adapt  itself  to  new  situations.  This  is 
the  problem  of  "Qirist  and  Culture." 
This  is  also  the  problem  of  the  book 
before  us,  one  set  on  a  narrower  stage 
than  that  of  Richard  Niebuhr,  and  of 
fullest  importance  to  Methodists,  yet 
not  to  them  alone. 

Dr.  Chiles  confesses  that  he  began 
his  studies  with  the  conservative  as- 
sumption that  Methodist  theology 
ought  to  remain  constantly  and  perhaps 
invariably  true  to  John  Wesley,  espe- 
cially as  Wesley  was  intent  on  renew- 
ing the  primitive  Christian  faith.  Yet 
the  author  came  more  and  more  to 
realize  both  the  inevitability  and  the 
desirability  of  continually  restating  this 
faith  in  terms  of  contemporary  thought. 
At  the  outset  he  rightly  asserts  the 
importance  of  theology  to  Wesley,  and 
the  folly  of  seeing  Methodism  merely 
as  unthinking  warmhearted  "do-good- 
ism".  Thus  convinced,  he  approaches 
the  problems  of  change  within  Method- 
ist theology — both  the  nature  of  this 
change  and  its  value.  He  does  this  by 
representative  samples  both  of  doc- 
trines and  of  theologians  in  American 
Methodism  during  the  last  150  years. 

For  his  doctrines  Dr.  Chiles  bypasses 
some  of  the  narrower  traditional  em- 
phases of  Wesley's  theology  (justifica- 
tion by  faith,  the  witness  of  the  Spirit, 
sanctification)  in  favor  of  categories 
which  overlap  and  to  a  large  extent 
encompass  them — revelation,  sin,  and 
grace.  Of  his  representative  Methodist 
theologians  the  first  was  British, 
though  wielding  enormous  influence  in 
America — Richard  Watson  ;  the  others 
were  American,  John  Miley  and  Albert 
Knudson.  Each  was  a  systematic 
theologian,  and  each  was  identified 
with  a  different  historical  period. 

In  general  the  first  period  was  char- 


acterized by  a  strong  and  sometimes 
uncritical  allegiance  to  Wesley's  theo- 
logical teachings,  an  allegiance  fre- 
quently qualified  during  the  second 
period  by  a  desire  both  to  systematize 
and  to  revise  his  thought  so  that  it 
could  be  more  readily  applied  to  con- 
temporary culture.  By  the  beginning 
of  the  20th  century  references  to 
Wesley's  theology  almost  disappeared, 
lost  in  the  general  conflict  between 
modernism  and  fundamentalisin,  theo- 
logy itself  being  overshadowed  by  the 
philosophy  of  religion,  and  "liberal 
evangelicalism"  giving  place  to  "evan- 
gelical liberalism." 

In  Chapter  III  Dr.  Chiles  outlines 
the  progress  in  American  Methodist 
theological  thought  "From  Revelation 
to  Reason."  He  has  some  important 
things  to  say  about  Wesley's  attitude 
both  to  the  Bible  and  to  theology, 
and  shows  how  for  him  religious 
knowledge  was  intuitively  apprehended, 
but  tested  by  Scripture  and  reason. 
He  goes  on  to  show  how  with  Watson 
there  was  a  subtle  change  of  mood,  the 
scriptures  still  conveying  a  revelation 
of  God  to  man,  but  their  message  being 
grasped  by  critical  reason  rather  than 
by  a  sensitive  spirit.  With  Miley  there 
was  an  outright  insistence  upon  the 
priority  of  intellect  that  could  not  but 
undermine  (however  reluctantly) 
Wesley's  emphasis  upon  the  centrality 
of  an  immediate  awareness  of  God. 
Knudson  saw  this  awareness  as  a 
native  religious  phenomenon,  a  speci- 
men to  be  examined  under  the  cold 
light  of  reason,  and  then  classified 
along  with  similar  phenomena  from 
other  realms  of  knowledge,  the  pos- 
sibility of  error  being  constantly  borne 
in  mind.  For  Knudson  any  emphasis 
upon  a  direct  revelation  of  God  was 
liable  to  dismissal  as  "theological  ir- 
rationalism".  Similarly  Dr.  Chiles 
traces  in  Chapter  IV  the  change  of 
emphasis  "From  Sinful  Man  to  Moral 
Man",  and  in  Chapter  V  "From  Free 
Grace  to  Free  Will".  In  each  case,  of 
course,  these  are  descriptions  of  ten- 
dencies, not  of  absolute  transforma- 
tions,   and    in    every    instance    it    is 


81 


possible  to  point  to  thinkers  who  re- 
fuse to  follow  the  trend. 

The  closing  chapter  avowedly  fol- 
lows Wesley's  homiletical  method  of  a 
practical  application.  Of  especial  prac- 
tical value  to  this  reviewer  is  the 
author's  summary  of  his  thesis,  and  no 
apology  should  be  needed  for  quoting 
it  at  length  (p.  185)  : 

The  first  transition,  'from  revela- 
tion to  reason,'  began  with  Wes- 
ley's conception  of  scriptural, 
experimental  religion  and  moved 
through  Watson's  efforts  to  au- 
thenticate Scripture,  and  Miley's 
arguments  for  the  scientific  certi- 
tude of  theology,  to  Knudson's 
rational  justification  of  faith  by 
means  of  personal  idealism.  In- 
creasing importance  was  attached 
to  reason,  natural  theology,  and 
philosophical  demonstration,  as 
priority  shifted  from  the  revelatory 
encounter,  and  its  description,  to 
the  reasons  for  and  the  reasonable- 
ness of  that  which  was  revealed. 

'From  sinful  man  to  moral  man,' 
the  second  major  transition,  delin- 
eated the  change  from  Wesley's 
classical  view  of  the  nature  and 
consequences  of  sin  to  an  ethical 
redefinition  of  sin  in  terms  of  free 
moral  agency.  The  guilt  of  original 
sin  was  placed  in  doubt  very  early 
and  eventually  denied,  along  with 
any  inheritance  of  depravity.  The 
realities  which  Wesley  attributed 
to  prevenient  grace  were  gradually 
incorporated  into  man's  created  na- 
ture, depreciating  his  estrangement 
and  helplessness  apart  from  God. 
Sin  ceased  to  be  the  presupposition 
of  every  human  act  and  came  to 
specify  only  those  voluntary  acts 
which  violate  known  obligation. 

The  third  major  change  in 
Methodist  theology,  'from  free 
will,'  began  with  the  Wesleyan 
doctrine  of  grace  as  free  for  all 
and  in  all  and  as  the  sole  power  of 
salvation.  Steadily  the  areas  of 
achievement  assigned  to  man's 
freedom  were  increased.  The  atone- 
ment   ceased    to    be    the    indis- 


pensable means  of  salvation  objec- 
tively required  by  God  and  man. 
Instead,  it  found  its  ground  in 
governmental  necessity  and  finally 
was  valued  primarily  for  its  sub- 
jective moral  influence.  Repentance 
and,  eventually,  faith  came  to  be 
considered  essentially  human  acts, 
not  God's  gifts,  and  salvation  pro- 
per became  man's  divinely  assisted 
effort  to  moralize  and  spiritualize 
his  life. 

In  this  closing  chapter  Dr.  Chiles 
also  engages  in  some  interesting  theo- 
rizing about  the  nature  of  theological 
transition,  and  closes  with  an  exhorta- 
tion that  we  should  seek  to  understand 
our  past  not  merely  for  academic 
satisfaction  but  in  order  to  fulfil  our 
role  in  God's  purposes :  "in  far- 
reaching  ways,  the  future  of  Method- 
ism may  depend  on  its  recovery  of  the 
past."  It  should  be  unnecessary  to  add 
that  this  is  not  a  volume  of  "pure" 
theology  unrelated  to  any  pastoral 
purpose — and  for  some  readers  this 
may  well  prove  an  attraction.  Nor 
does  it  set  out  to  be  a  systematical 
history  of  the  systematic  theology  of 
American  Methodism.  There  are  the 
occasional  errors  of  fact  or  perspective 
from  which  no  scholarly  work  is 
exempt.  Nevertheless  Dr.  Chiles  here 
provides  us  with  insights  and  stimula- 
tion that  should  greatly  help  us  to  a 
sympathetic  understanding  of  our  fore- 
fathers' experiments  in  theological 
pathfinding,  and  thus  enable  us  to  walk 
more  assuredly  along  the  highway  of 
our  own  spiritual  destiny. 

— Frank  Baker 


The  Drafitatic  Story  of  Early  Ameri- 
can Methodism.  Frederick  E.  Maser. 
Abingdon.    1965.   107  pp.   $.70. 

This  modest  historical  primer  is  oc- 
casioned by  the  coming  celebration  in 
1966  of  the  bicentennial  of  the  begin- 
ning of  American  Methodism.  Ap- 
propriately brief,  selective,  and  simply 
written  for  popular  circulation,  it  is  a 
rehearsal  and  celebration  rather  than 


82 


a  critical  examination  of  the  tradition. 
The  author  is  pastor  of  historic  Old 
St.  George's  Church  in  Philadelphia. 

Methodist  ministers  should  not  look 
for  surprises  in  this  familiar  story  but 
may  welcome  such  a  readable  sketch  of 
his  heritage  for  the  layman.  The 
"dramatic  story  of  early  American 
Methodism"  of  course  looks  back  to 
the  earlier  ministries  of  the  Wesleys 
and  Whitefield  in  this  country,  but 
begins  properly  with  the  work  of 
Robert  Strawbridge  in  Maryland, 
Philip  Embury  in  New  York,  and 
Captain  Thomas  Webb  in  Philadelphia, 
as  well  as  an  early  Methodist  society 
in  Leesburg,  Virginia.  In  anticipation 
of  union  soon  between  Methodist  and 
Evangelical  United  Brethren,  the 
author  recognizes  also  the  ministry  of 
Philip  William  Otterbein  and  Martin 
Boehm  among  German  colonists.  The 
sending  of  Joseph  Pilmoor  and  Richard 
Boardman  to  America  in  1769,  the 
decisive  work  of  Francis  Asbury,  the 
development  of  Methodist  itinerancy 
and  organization,  the  relation  of 
American  Methodists  to  the  American 
Revolution,  the  Sacramental  Contro- 
versy, the  contributions  of  rugged 
pioneer  preachers,  the  plan  of  Wesley 
for  American  Methodism,  the  ordina- 
tion and  sending  of  Thomas  Coke  and 
the  Christmas  Conference  of  1784 — -all 
these  familiar  developments  are  re- 
hearsed for  the  layman's  benefit.  In- 
cluded also  is  a  brief  Epilogue  to 
bring  the  story  up  to  date. 

It  remains  to  be  seen  whether  this 
book  and  the  bicentennial  celebration 
generally  will  serve  to  bring  the  story 
up  to  date  in  another  sense.  Consider 
this  quotation :  "In  short,  the  Meth- 
odists, in  place  of  the  sacraments,  were 
sending  forth  a  man,  Francis  Asbury. 
Possibly  this  is  the  secret  of  Methodist 
success.  Methodism  is  a  man  going 
forth  with  good  news  about  God — a 
man  who  requires  no  altar  upon  which 
to  provide  the  sacraments,  who  needs 
no  .sanctuary  in  which  to  proclaim  his 
message,  who  needs  no  vestments  in 
which  to  present  his  truth ;  who  needs 
only  persons,  persons  who  want  to  hear 


about  God,  persons  who  feel  their  need 
of  word  from  God"  (p.  83).  Will  such 
historical  retrospect  encourage  re- 
doubling of  ways  and  words  that 
served  such  persons  in  mid-eighteenth- 
century  frontier  society ;  or  will  it 
contribute  to  the  renewal  of  the  church 
and  its  freedom  "to  serve  the  present 
age"  and  the  changing  decades  ahead? 
— McMurry  S.  Richey 

Religion  in  America.  Winthrop  S. 
Hudson.  Scribner's.  1965.  447  pp. 
$7.95. 

Any  writer  who  attempts  to  survey 
the  whole  350-year  history  of  Ameri- 
can Religion  (including  the  three 
major  faiths)  in  a  volume  of  450  pages 
faces  an  almost  insuperable  task.  Yet 
Professor  Hudson  has  accomplished 
this  feat  amazingly  well.  Moreover, 
the  literary  style  is  distinguished. 

Structurally,  the  volume  is  framed  in 
four  parts :  I.  The  Formative  Years 
(1607-1789);  II.  The  New  Nation 
(1789-1860)  ;  III.  Years  of  Midpassage 
(1860-1914);  IV.  Modern  America 
(1914-  ).  Four  chapters  are  de- 
voted to  each  part. 

zA.mong  the  more  distinctive  features 
of  Professor  Hudson's  treatment  are 
the  following: 

First,  the  author  weights  the  con- 
tents in  favor  of  post-colonial  develop- 
ments. Specifically,  he  explores  the 
developments  of  the  first  182  years  in 
102  pages.  This  may  seem  too  com- 
pressed to  satisfy  some  readers,  but 
Hudson  reveals  exceptional  knack  at 
condensing  a  great  variety  of  ideas  and 
events  in  a  few  succinct  sentences. 

Second,  denominational  distinctives, 
although  not  ignored,  are  subordinated 
to  an  emphasis  upon  those  tendencies  of 
life  and  thought  which  reflect  the  basic 
unities  of  the  various  religious  bodies. 
The  ecumenical  value  of  this  approach 
is  obvious. 

Third,  instead  of  seeking  to  say  a 
little  something  about  everything  in 
American  religion,  Hudson  concen- 
trates upon  what  he  considers  the  more 
significant    phenomena    and    analyzes 


83 


them  in  considerable  detail.  His 
choices  may  not  please  everyone,  but 
this  reviewer  is  impressed  with  his 
selections  in  most  instances. 

Fourth,  Hudson  is  primarily  con- 
cerned to  depict  the  religious  life  of  the 
American  people,  but  at  the  same  time 
he  often  presents  illuminating  theologi- 
cal interpretations. 

Fifth,  instead  of  adding  a  general 
bibliography  at  the  end  of  the  volume 
the  author  happily  provides  suggestions 
for  further  reading  in  the  footnotes. 
Many  of  his  references  are  to  primary 
sources. 

The  total  result  is  a  most  refreshing 
book.  It  deserves  (and  will  receive)  a 
wide  reading.  It  is  unquestionably  the 
best  one-volume  introduction  in  its 
field.— H.   Shelton   Smith 


Man's  Nature  and  His  Communities. 
Reinhold  Niebuhr.  Scribner's.  1965. 
125  pp.   $3.95. 

The  master  Protestant  ethicist  of 
our  day  turns  his  hand  to  a  volume  of 
essays  on  the  human  condition  as  seen 
through  the  eyes  of  the  Christian 
faith.  If  the  phrase  "a  mellowed  Nie- 
buhr" be  not  self-contradictory,  it  can 
stand  to  describe  the  mood  of  the  book. 
Whatever  the  limitation  of  physical 
infirmity,  his  mind  has  lost  none  of  its 
dialectical  skill  in  the  apt  and  pithy 
generalization,  the  deft  movement  from 
one  epoch  to  another,  the  sharpness  of 
his  scalpel  in  cutting  into  the  anatomy 
of  motivation. 

His  introduction  promises  a  state- 
ment of  revision  of  earlier  rash  opinion. 
The  substance  of  the  essays  confirms 
a  qualification  more  than  a  retraction 
of  the  insights  with  which  his  name 
has  been  connected.  Many  familiar 
Niebuhrean  themes  are  here  rehearsed : 
his  strictures  against  simplicism,  ra- 
tionalism, idealism,  perfectionism.  The 
positive  pivot  on  which  he  swings  his 
dialectics  is  that  man's  communities  are 
made  and  sustained  by  a  perennial  mix- 
ture of  moral  motives,  the  angelic  and 
the  demonic.  Both  the  "realistic"  and 
"idealistic"   impulses   in  man  must  be 


reckoned  together  to  account  for  the 
strange  mixture  of  his  ways.  So  too 
his  tribalism  and  his  universalism  are 
apparent  at  once,  for  example,  in  the 
American  pattern  of  race  relations. 
His  capacities  for  self-seeking  and  for 
self-giving,  likewise,  provoke  Niebuhr 
to  an  extended  historical  exegesis  on 
the  gospel  paradox  about  losing  and 
finding  life. 

It  is  significant  that  the  volume 
closes  on  the  note  of  "grace"  rather 
than  "judgment".  Niebuhr  is  im- 
pressed by  the  resilient  process  of 
history,  beyond  man's  doing,  "common 
grace",  restoring  new  communities  out 
of  the  old  broken  ones.  The  "mellow- 
ing" of  Niebuhr's  mind  is  no  softening 
of  critical  acumen,  but  a  deepening 
acknowledgment  that  the  final  word  of 
the  Christian  faith  is  one  of  salvation. 
— Waldo  Beach 

Racism  and  the  Christian  Understand- 
ing of  Man.  George  D.  Kelsey. 
Scribner's.    1965.    178  pp.    $4.50. 

This  is  no  mere  run-of-the-mine 
book  on  race  relations.  Rather,  it  is 
qualitatively  comparable  to  Kyle 
Haselden's  excellent  work.  The  Racial 
Problem  in  Christian  Perspective,  first 
published  in  1959.  Both  books  probe 
racism  in  spiritual  depth. 

Racism  is,  says  Professor  Kelsey,  "a 
modern  phenomenon"  which  "emerged 
as  a  sort  of  afterthought,  a  byproduct 
of  the  ideological  justification  of 
European  political  and  economic  power 
arrangements  over  colored  peoples." 
In  the  course  of  time,  however,  racism 
"developed  into  an  independent  phe- 
nomenon, possessing  meaning  and  value 
in  itself  and  giving  character  to  all  the 
institutions  of  some  societies." 

Kelsey  takes  sharp  issue  with  those 
who  ascribe  racism  to  ignorance  or  to 
cultural  lag.  Instead,  he  views  racism 
as  a  pernicious  evil  that  stems  from  an 
idolatrous  worship  of  one's  ethnic 
group  as  the  ultimate  object  of  mean- 
ing, value,  and  loyalty.  As  such,  it  is 
not  essentially  alterable  by  any  form 
of  cultural  development.    Racism,  ac- 


84 


cording  to  the  author,  involves  a  deci- 
sive value  judgment  with  respect  to  the 
essential  being  of  one's  own  race  in 
contrast  to  that  of  another  race.  In 
Kelsey's  words,  "the  fundamental 
racist  affirmation  is  that  the  in-race  is 
glorious  and  pure  as  to  its  being,  and 
out-races  are  defective  and  depraved  as 
to  their  being."  This  deification  of 
one's  own  race  in  effect  denies  that  all 
men  are  created  in  the  image  of  God 
and  thus  bear  an  essential  likeness  in 
being  to  one  another.  Hence,  racism 
alienates  mankind  on  the  deepest  pos- 
sible level. 

All  this  and  much  more  the  reader 
will  encounter  in  Professor  Kelsey's 
penetrating  volume.  Unfortunately,  the 
author  did  not  supply  an  index.  Al- 
though a  general  bibliography  is  also 
missing,  the  footnotes  cite  numerous 
works  of  value. — H.  Shelton  Smith 

White  Protestantism  and  the  Negro. 
David  M.  Reimers.  Oxford  Univer- 
sity Press.   1965.   236  pp.  $5. 

If  one  agrees  with  Santayana's 
aphorism  that  those  who  don't  know 
history  are  damned  to  repeat  its  mis- 
takes, the  merit  of  this  book  is  almost 
immediately  apparent.  In  less  than  200 
pages  Professor  David  Reimers,  of  the 
Brooklyn  College  Department  of  His- 
tory, traces  more  than  150  years  of 
White  Protestant-Negro  relations  in 
the  United  States. 

Reimers  does  not  venture  to  discuss 
the  role  of  theology  as  a  factor  in  the' 
shaping  of  race  relations.  Instead,  his 
work  describes,  from  the  early  1800's 
to  the  1960's,  how  American  Protes- 
tantism has  responded  to  the  "stranger 
in  its  midst".  In  addition,  he  has 
provided  a  useful  bibliographical  essay 
for  those  who  want  to  read  more. 

No  one  alert  to  the  present  racial 
struggle  should  really  be  surprised  by 
the  general  impression  created  by  the 
book,  nor  by  its  conclusions.  White 
Protestantism  has  been,  and  in  some 
large  measure  continues  to  be,  very 
reluctant  to  become  genuinely  inclusive 
racially.  Gary  Player's  response  to  the 


disqualification  of  a  black  competitor  in 
a  recent  golf  tournament  in  apartheid 
South  Africa  ("I  play  golf — I  don't 
meddle  in  politics.")  illustrates  one 
familiar  (and  hallowed)  Protestant  at- 
titude toward  race.  Reimers'  book 
describes  several  more  and  shows  how, 
together,  they  have  developed.  What 
most  of  us  will  see,  perhaps  for  the 
first  time  here,  is  careful  and  judicious 
documentation  of  the  historical  record 
of  American  Protestantism's  failure  to 
deal  creatively  and  constructively  with 
racial  sin. 

A  pastor  knowledgeable  of  this  book 
(and  of  Dr.  H.  Shelton  Smith's  1965 
Gray  Lectures)  should  be  able  signif- 
icantly to  help  his  congregation  under- 
stand where  we  are  now  by  knowing 
hoiv  we  got  here. — Harmon  L.  Smith 

The  Freedom  Revolution  and  the 
Churches.  Robert  W.  Spike.  As- 
sociation Press.   1965.   128  pp.  $2.95. 

When  Robert  Spike  wrote  this  little 
book,  he  was  Director  of  the  National 
Council  of  Churches'  Commission  on 
Religion  and  Race.  He  is  now  on  the 
faculty  of  the  University  of  Chicago 
Divinity  School  as  chairman  of  the 
Department  on  Ministry.  One  sus- 
pects that  his  academic  tenure,  like  his 
previous  work,  will  not  be  cloistered 
in  an  ivoried  (or  even  ivyed)  tower; 
and  we  can  be  glad  for  this.  It  was 
(and  is)  his  active  involvement  in 
the  "freedom  revolution"  that  has  al- 
lowed him  to  write  with  authority  and 
perception  about  very  concrete  as  well 
as  conceptual  issues. 

The  strength  and  attraction  of  the 
book  is  its  admitted  tractarian  char- 
acter. And,  in  this  respect,  not  only 
the  failure  of  the  churches  but  also  the 
conspiracy  of  white  extremist  groups 
(including  the  Hargis  and  Mclntire 
variety  together  with  Citizens  Councils 
and  the  KKK)  receive  deserved,  if  not 
always  penetrating,  criticism. 

This  general  approach,  however,  is 
not  without  its  own  dangers  and  dif- 
ficulties, and  the  logic  of  the  tactician 
is    occasionally   confused    by   the   elo- 


85 


quence  of  the  exhorter.  Spike  argues 
(pp.  71  ff.),  for  example,  that  "prep- 
ositional theology"  is  intrinsically  un- 
suited  to  deal  constructively  with 
racism;  but  he  later  claims  (p.  98  ff.) 
that  the  Church's  greatest  opportunity 
lies  in  the  South  because  there  pietist 
and  fundamentalist  religion  still  plays 
"a  large  part  in  the  lives  of  people". 
One  might  ask  (at  the  risk  of 
pedantry!)  whether  American  religi- 
ous liberalism  and  the  Social  Gospel 
did,  in  fact,  speak  any  more  meaning- 
fully to  racism  than  "propositional 
theology"  ?  Moreover,  one's  impression 
is  that  Spike  writes  rather  more  from 
the  vantage  point  and  about  the  in- 
volvement of  the  NCCs  Commission  in 
the  freedom  revolution  than  of  "the" 
church  or  parish  churches.  The  blurb 
on  the  jacket  flap  (that  this  is  "a  'why' 
and  'what  to  do'  action  manual")  is 
thus  accurate  only  in  a  very  general 
sense. 

The  place  of  this  book  in  the  current 
discussion  and  situation  is  somewhat 
uncertain.  Nevertheless,  it  is  an  inter- 
esting, and  sometimes  moving,  tract 
and  one  can  read  it  with  profit. 

— Harmon  L.  Smith 


Missions  in  a  Time  of  Testing.  R.  K. 
Orchard.  Westminster.  1964.  212 
pp.  $4.50. 

As  London  Secretary  of  the  Interna- 
tional Missionary  Council  (now  the 
Division  of  World  Mission  and  Evan- 
gelism in  the  World  Council  of 
Churches),  Ronald  K.  Orchard  has 
been  on  the  frontiers  of  mission  and 
ecumenicity.  This  book  is  by  far  the 
best  of  several  recent  attempts  to 
bridge  "the  gap  between  theological 
reflection  and  practical  decision",  to 
interpret  the  relationship  between 
God's  act  in  Christ  and  our  participa- 
tion in  that  mission. 

Naturally,  Orchard  is  fully  cognizant 
of  the  new  perspectives :  that  "mission 
is  presence  before  it  is  action,"  that 
human  relationships  must  precede  ex- 
plicit   witness,    that    the    Christ-event 


must  be  mediated  to  men  in  their 
secular  and  cultural  experiences.  Un- 
like some  extreme  mission  theologians, 
he  does  not  claim  all  of  life  in  Christ 
for  mission ;  he  recognizes  the  place  of 
worship  and  service  as  well.  He  as- 
serts that  "neither  the  parish  nor  the 
gathered  congregation  ...  is  capable, 
by  itself  and  in  its  present  form,  of 
carrying  the  Christian  mission,  much 
less  of  expressing  the  totality  of  the 
Christian  life  in  any  locality  in  the  cir- 
cumstances of  our  day."  But  he  be- 
lieves equally  strongly  that  there  is 
need  for  churches  and  mission  organi- 
zations as  focal  points,  as  servants  of 
the  mission,  as  "the  part  for  the 
whole." 

Orchard's  central  thesis  lies  in  his 
recurrent  definition  of  mission  as  "the 
explicit  and  direct  telling  to  men  the 
name  of  their  Redeemer."  To  some 
readers,  this  will  sound  theologically 
narrow,  especially  when  he  specifically 
excludes  compassion,  personal  com- 
mitment, establishing  churches,  etc.  as 
valid  motives  for  engagement  in  mis- 
sion. Others,  agreeing  with  him  in 
theory,  will  find  it  difficult  to  reconcile 
this  emphasis  on  proclamation  with  his 
proposal  for  an  "order"  of  mission  to 
include  many  Christians  in  "secular" 
occupations.  This  ministry  to  men  in 
society  would  not  be  for  the  primary 
purpose  of  making  converts,  but  to 
explore  the  meaning  of  the  Christ- 
event  within  "the  rightful,  limited  but 
genuine  autonomy"  of  these  human 
activities.  Still  other  readers  will  be 
less  optimistic  than  Orchard  that  such 
witness  will  ahvays  be  given  an  op- 
portunity to  answer  Why?— and  thus 
to  "tell  the  name"  and  thereby  validate 
the  mission. 

A  couple  of  chapters  may  be  too 
technically  aimed  at  mission  admin- 
istrators, but  the  book  as  a  whole  is 
bound  to  stimulate  all  of  us  to  new 
insights  on  the  meaning  and  opportun- 
ities of  vital  evangelism.  For  the  mis- 
sion Ronald  Orchard  discusses  so 
freshly  and  cogently  involves  the 
Church  and  every  Christian  in  a  time 
of  testing.— Creighton  Lacy 


86 


The  Thickness  of  Glory.  John  Kil- 
linger.  Abingdon.  1964,  1965.  158 
pp.   $2.75. 

This  volume  of  sermons  so  appeals  to 
me  that  I  wish  I  had  written  it.  I  have 
already  recommended  that  the  author, 
who  has  just  gone  to  Vanderbilt  in 
homiletics,  be  invited  to  preach  in  the 
Duke  Chapel.  The  ten  transcribed 
sermons  concentrate  on  God  :  unknown 
yet  known ;  concealed  even  when  re- 
vealed ;  demanding  more  than  we  give, 
yet  accepting  us  in  mercy.  Each 
sermon  leads  to  the  next;  there  is 
continuity  in  diversity,  as  Killinger 
wrestles  with  "the  ultimate  mystery  of 
God"  as  set  forth  in  the  Bible.  He 
knows  the  contemporary  world  too  :  its 
promise  and  its  threat ;  its  satisfactions 
and  its  anxiety.  He  is  bi-focal :  he  says 
that  his  father  taught  him  about  "the 
real  world  of  theology  and  horses" 
(p.  5).  This  bi-focal  approach  is 
clarified  by  a  dramatic  style  which 
chuckles  and  sparkles  and  encourages 
us  to  apprehend  even  when  we  cannot 
comprehend.  Each  proposition  is  il- 
lustrated from  all  kinds  of  places  and 
people.  Killinger  knows  current 
letters;  he  has  already  written  two 
books  in  which  he  reflects  on  modern 
literature  and  theology.  In  addition, 
he  structures  his  sermons  for  our 
remembrance. 

Any  criticism  ?  Of  course.  One  sec- 
tion in  chapter  1  should  be  omitted; 
the  exegesis  of  the  Fourth  Word  from 
the  Cross  in  chapter  7  is  doubtful ; 
chapter  10  is  eisegetically  allegorical. 
Moreover,  he  must  give  us  another 
volume,  consciously  and  emphatically 
stemming  from  the  Resurrection  reve- 
lation. He  has  shaken  the  foundations  ; 
now  he  must  tell  us,  at  equal  length, 
about  the  new  being  in  the  risen  and 
indwelling  Christ. 

There  are  not  many  of  us  who  are 
going  to  preach  these  sermons  because 
most  of  us  are  not  ready  for  them 
either  in  the  study  or  the  pulpit.  They 
will  search  us  and  try  us.  If  we 
wrestle  with  them,  they  will  bless  us 
before  we  let  them  go;  and  we  shall 


give  God  the  glory  and  Killinger  our 
thanks. — James  T.  Qeland 


Are  You  Running  with  Me,  Jesus? — 
Prayers.  Malcolm  Boyd.  Holt,  Rine- 
hart  and  Winston.  1965.  119  pp. 
$3.95. 

This  small  book  may  be  a  scandal  to 
the  sanctimonious  and  a  stumbling 
block  to  the  "sophisticated",  but  it  may 
also  be  a  blessing  to  those  who  realize 
with  regret  that  they  are  failing  to 
speak  honestly  with  God.  Malcolm 
Boyd  shocks  us  into  a  painful  acknowl- 
edgment of  our  defensivenes  and  artifi- 
ciality of  thought  and  language  which 
we  seldom  put  aside  even  in  a  private 
audience  with  our  Lord  who  knows  us 
well. 

In  lucid,  contemporary  speech  these 
prayers  deal  with  the  emotions  and 
personal  experiences  that  we  all  find 
important  to  us.  It  becomes  obvious  in 
this  book  that  we  are  not  speaking 
politely  to  a  distant  deity ;  in  the 
presence  of  the  living  God  a  man  must 
speak  directly  about  the  joy  and  fear, 
doubt  and  despair  that  are  found  in 
human  life  day  by  day. 

The  main  theme  of  this  collection 
of  prayers  is  freedom,  the  freedom  that 
God  intends  for  the  individual  in  soli- 
tude and  in  society.  Our  lives  seem  to 
consist  of  dashing  about,  caught  in  a 
cycle  of  self-centered  busyness,  and  we 
are  indeed  enslaved  unless  it  is  Jesus 
who  is  running  with  us,  sharing  our 
frustrations  and  strengthening  our  con- 
cern for  each  injury,  each  injustice  that 
we  see  crippling  another  human  being. 

Mr.  Boyd  has  structured  the  book  in 
a  way  that  reflects  his  own  involve- 
ment in  many  areas  of  modern  life. 
There  are  prayers  for  one's  self  and 
for  society,  for  racial  freedom,  for 
those  who  need  love  and  sexual  health, 
for  people  in  the  city  and  in  the  univer- 
sity. There  is  a  section  of  perceptive 
meditations  on  films  which  utilizes  cur- 
rent motion  pictures  as  depictions  of 
the  human  situation. 

The   book    closes    with    prayers    on 


87 


more  traditional  Christian  themes,  the 
final  one  being  a  moving  prayer  of 
repentance  that  includes  the  petition: 
"Take  our  imperfect  prayers  and 
purify  them,  so  that  we  mean  what  we 
pray  and  are  prepared  to  give  ourselves 
.  .  .  along  with  our  words.  .  .  ."  May 
it  be  so  indeed. 

— Harriet    V.    Leonard 
Reference  Librarian 

Understanding  the  New  Testament. 
Howard  Clark  Kee,  Franklin  W. 
Young,  and  Karlfried  Froelich.  (2nd 
ed.)    Prentice-Hall.    1965.   490  pp. 

The  New  Testament:  Its  Background, 
Grozvth,  and  Content.  Bruce  Man- 
ning Metzger.  Abingdon.  1965.  288 
pp.  $4.75. 

Both  these  books  are  intended  to 
introduce  the  reader  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment. Kee  and  Young — now  Kee, 
Young,  and  Froelich  in  the  second 
edition — is  not  explicitly  put  forward 
as  a  textbook,  but  it  will  probably 
continue  to  find  a  large  market  as  such. 
It  was  originally  commissioned  by  the 
Society  for  Religion  in  Higher  Edu- 
cation and  Metzger  by  the  Council 
for  Religion  in  Independent  Schools. 
Of  the  two,  Kee,  Young,  and  Froelich 
is  handsomely  illustrated  with  photo- 
graphs, maps  and  charts,  while  Metz- 
ger is  without  any  illustations  save  a 
few  charts  and  a  couple  of  maps. 

The  fact  that  Metzger  is  aimed  at  a 
somewhat  lower  academic  level 
(secondary  school  and  college  fresh- 
men) than  Kee,  Young,  and  Froelich 
(general  college  and  university)  is 
reflected  in  two  ways.  First,  it  is  a 
shorter  book ;  second,  critical  questions 
are  not  treated  extensively  but  resolved 
by  the  author  without  any  attempt  to 
survey  the  full  range  of  argumentation. 
Nevertheless,  in  style  and  content 
Metzger  is  not  an  especially  easy  book. 
The  average  college  student  would  not 
be  insulted  by  it. 

The  revision  of  Kee,  Young,  and 
Froelich  has  been  thorough,  and  we 
are  confronted  with  what  is  sub- 
stantially a  new  book.  The  "blurb"  an- 


nounces   that   65%    of   the    book    has 
been   rewritten,    and   this    is   certainly 
no    exaggeration.     Greater    justice    is 
done  to  the  complexity  and  difficulty  of 
historical   and   theological   issues   sur- 
rounding the  origin  and  character  of 
the    New    Testament   books,   and   the 
perspectives     and     results     of     recent 
scholarship  have  been  fully  taken  into 
account.    For  example,  a  discussion  of 
the   gnostic   question   has   been   added 
to   the   opening   chapter   on   the    Hel- 
lenistic   antecedents    of    early    Chris- 
tianity.  Chapters  3-6  are  a  substantial- 
ly new  treatment  of  Jesus  and  the  prob- 
lem of  the  historical   tradition  in  the 
light  of  form  criticism  and  redaction 
analysis.    Justice   is  now  done  to  the 
problem   of   the   character   and   trans- 
mission of  the  Jesus  tradition  and  the 
nature  of  the  gospel  material.    More- 
over, three  entirely  new  chapters  deal- 
ing with  Mark,  Matthew,  and  Luke- 
Acts    correct   a   glaring   deficiency   in 
the  first  edition.    These  chapters   (11- 
13)  are  placed  where  they  belong  in  a 
treatment  such  as  this,  namely,  after 
the   chapters  on    Paul   and   the   early 
church.     The   chapters   on    Paul   have 
been  considerably  revised  (especially  7, 
8,    10),   and   the   chapters   on   John,   I 
Peter  and  James,  the  Catholic  Epistles, 
and  Hebrews  and  Revelation  have  been 
reworked  and  reorganized.    The  bibli- 
ography is  more  extensive,  as  are  the 
footnotes. 

Unquestionably,  the  new  revision 
represents  an  improvement  on  the 
original  in  terms  of  adequate  treatment 
of  critical  problems  and  questions. 
Consequently,  the  book  will  possibly 
appear  somewhat  more  complex  to  the 
beginning  student.  Yet  it  is  certainly 
not  outside  the  range  of  the  college 
student,  and  to  the  seminary  student 
it  affords,  inter  alia,  a  nice  consensus 
— insofar  as  such  is  possible — of  the 
views  of  the  New  Testament  critics 
and  interpreters  who  are  presently  in 
the  ascendancy. 

While  the  new  Kee,  Young,  and 
Froelich  represents  an  increased 
awareness  of  the  problems  and  uncer- 
tainties of  New  Testament  study,  one 


88 


gets  little  hint  of  such  things  from 
Metzger.  The  learned  Princeton  Theo- 
logical Seminary  Neutestamentler 
gives  the  reader  the  usually  conserva- 
tive views  on  historical  and  other 
matters  with  the  principal  arguments 
for  the  same.  Although  these  argu- 
ments are  frequently  plausible,  and  in 
many  cases  doubtless  right,  one  be- 
comes uneasy  at  the  regularity  with 
which  they  demonstrate  the  historical 
reliability  of  the  New  Testament.  The 
further  one  reads  in  the  book  the  better 
he  is  able  to  predict  how  Metzger  will 
decide  almost  every  critical  question, 
that  is,  in  favor  of  tradition  or,  at  least, 
traditional  critical  views.  At  the  same 
time,  Metzger  gives  a  brief,  funda- 
mentally positive,  description  of  form 
criticism  (pp.  84-88),  acknowledges  the 
importance  of  the  contributions  of  the 
evangelists  to  the  Gospels  (88-96),  and 
indicates  that  Luke  may  have  had  a 
rather  large  share  in  the  composition 
of  the  speeches  reported  in  Acts  (177). 
Yet  he  ventures,  on  the  one  hand,  to 
reconstruct  the  ministry  of  Jesus  in 
three  chronological  periods — an  in- 
credible feat  according  to  the  prevail- 
ing current  of  scholarly  opinion — and, 
on  the  other  hand,  appears  scarcely 
willing  to  venture  the  judgment  that 
Paul  did  not  write  the  Pastorals,  finally 
falling  back  on  the  fragment  hypothe- 
sis. 

All  in  all,  Metzger's  book  is  the  fruit 
of  a  kind  of  scholarship  which  sees 
as  its  chief  task  the  establishment  and 
chronological    fixing    of    the    data    of 


early  Christian  history  as  given  in  the 
New  Testament.  The  perspective  and 
character  of  Metzger's  book  is  im- 
plied in  the  following  tabulations.  Al- 
most one-fourth  of  the  entire  volume 
is  devoted  to  the  historical  background 
of  the  New  Testament  (pp.  17-70), 
proportionately  much  more  than  in 
Kee,  Young,  Froelich  or  James  Price's 
comparable  work,  Interpreting  the 
New  Testament.  Another  fourth  of  the 
book  is  devoted  to  the  life  and  ministry 
of  Jesus  (pp.  102-166).  Two  chapters 
(pp.  181-214)  are  essentially  a  sum- 
mary of  the  Book  of  Acts,  with  refer- 
ences to  Paul's  letters.  The  last  two 
chapters  (pp.  215-272)  contain  brief 
descriptions  of  the  historical  setting 
followed  by  short  summaries  of  the 
letters  of  Paul  and  the  remaining  books 
of  the  New  Testament.  The  reviewer 
is  compelled  to  ask  whether  such  a 
format  encourages  the  reading  of  the 
New  Testament  itself,  or  to  what 
extent  it  allows  the  student  to  sub- 
stitute the  reading  and  study  of  the 
textbook  for  a  mastery  of  the  New 
Testament. 

Kee,  Young,  and  Froelich  will,  as  a 
rule,  be  used  by  teachers  or  ministers 
who  are  willing  to  risk  allowing  their 
students  or  laymen  to  explore  the  many 
faceted  world  of  New  Testament 
criticism,  with  all  its  dangers  and  pit- 
falls. Metzger  will  be  chosen  by  those 
who  are  concerned  to  disturb  as  little 
as  possible  traditional  and  non-critical 
approaches  to  the  New  Testament. 

— D.  Moody  Smith,  Jr. 


Duke  Divinity  School  Clinics 

July  18-29,  1966 

Four  clinics,  running  concurrently,  will  be  conducted  at  the  Duke  Divinity 
School,  July  18-29.  These  are  designed  for  ministers  who  are  willing  to 
participate  in  two  weeks  of  intensive  training.  A  minister  may  enroll  in 
only  one  clinic. 

CHURCH  PLANNING  AND  DEVELOPMENT :  To  acquaint  church 
leaders  with  the  philosophy  and  methodology  of  the  "planning 
process"  as  applied  to  church  extension,  conference  structure, 
parish  planning,  research-survey,  and  cooperative  work  both  in 
urban  and  rural  settings.  (Dr.  Daniel  M.  Schores,  Jr.,  Faculty 
Chairman) 

PASTORAL  CARE:  To  explore  the  personal  and  theological  issues 
involved  in  ministry.  Through  lectures,  group  discussions,  and 
hospital  visitation  experiences,  explorations  are  made  of  the  mean- 
ing of  selfhood,  the  self  in  crisis,,  and  the  ministry  to  those  in  the 
crisis  of  illness.     (Dr.  Richard  A.  Goodling,  Faculty  Chairman) 

PREACHING :  To  focus  on  principal  and  practical  aspects  of  sermon 
planning,  preparation,  and  presentation,  particularly  in  the  area  of 
sermon  construction  and  delivery.  Opportunity  is  provided  for 
each  participant  to  preach  at  least  twice  before  a  small  group  for 
critique.  Matters  of  common  concern  for  preachers  are  discussed 
in  plenary  sessions.     (Dr.  James  T.  Cleland,  Faculty  Chairman) 

SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY:  To  discuss  current  and  controverted 
issues  in  present-day  Protestant  theology  as  these  are  illustrated 
by  "radical"  and  "social  change"  theology.  Lectures,  assigned 
reading,  and  group  conferences.  (Dr.  Frederick  Herzog,  Faculty 
Chairman) 

COST:  Registration  Fee— $10.00 

Room — Double  per  week — $8.75 ;  Single  per  week — $10.25 

Linen,  upon  request,  $3.75  per  week. 
Meals — Cafeteria 

For  full  information  on  program  and  financial  aid  write  to  the  Director 
and  Registrar,  Dr.  M.  Wilson  Nesbitt,  Box  4814,  Duke  Station,  Durham, 
N.  C.  27706. 


THE 

DUKE 
DIVINITY 
SCHOOli 
REVIEW 


J 


»,  "^ 


Xv\ 


h-^^|5Sr 


W^"i 


Spring  1966 


A  Prayer  of  Thanksgiving  and  Intercession 
for  Duke  Missionaries  in  Service 


Almighty  and  Eternal  God,  our  heavenly  Father,  who  didst  send 
Thy  Holy  Spirit  unto  the  apostles,  to  teach  them  and  lead  them  into 
all  truth,  that  they  might  go  forth  unto  all  the  world  and  preach  the 
Gospel  to  every  creature,  we  thank  Thee  for  the  unending  line  of 
Apostles  who  have,  in  every  age,  received  Thy  Spirit,  and  have  made 
the  world  into  one  parish. 

In  gratitude,  we  remember  them,  men  and  women  of  all  countries, 
all  centuries,  and  all  colors,  who  swore  to  be  Thy  Son's  missionaries 
and  did  not  swear  in  vain. 

For  their  vision  of  one  world  under  Thee;  for  their  courage  in  the 
face  of  all  hindrances;  for  their  faithfulness  even  unto  death;  we  thank 
Thee. 

For  Thy  word,  translated,  taught,  and  preached  in  many  tongues; 
for  churches,  schools,  and  colleges  in  many  lands;  for  orphanages  and 
hospitals  in  remote  corners  of  the  world ;  we  thank  Thee. 

For  quiet,  disciplined  lives  of  Christian  service;  for  hearts  big 
enough  even  to  love  their  enemies;  for  the  life  of  Christ  reborn  in 
countless  places;  we  thank  Thee. 

We  give  Thee  glory  for  them.  We  honor  them  who  lived  only  to 
honor  Thee. 

And,  we  ask  Thy  blessing  upon  them  who  still  live  in  militant  devo- 
tion to  Thee,  of  every  church,  in  every  corner  of  the  foreign  field. 

Especially  do  we  make  our  prayers  of  intercession  for  those  of  our 
own  Divinity  School  and  University,  whose  names  we  place  before  Thee 
on  Thine  altar,  whose  names  we  speak  in  honor  in  Thy  presence  and 
in  the  company  of  Thy  worshipping  people,   (insert  names). 

Bless  Them,  O  Father,  who  didst  give  them.  Bless  them,  O  Christ 
the  Son,  whose  name  they  bear.  Bless  them,  O  Holy  Spirit,  whose 
work  they  share.  Be  with  them,  O  Triune  God,  in  all  perils  by  land  or 
water,  in  weariness  and  painfulness,  in  discouragement  and  persecution. 

Let  them  see  the  travail  of  their  souls,  and  be  satisfied. 

Even  while  they  labor  let  them  hear  Thy  encouraging  words:  "Well 
done,  good  and  faithful  servants." 

Strengthen  them  in  Thy  loving  power,  until  Thy  Gospel  is  known  and 
loved  and  lived  all  over  the  earth,  and  Thy  Kingdom  has  come  in  its 
fulness. 

Hear  these  our  prayers  of  thanksgiving  and  intercession,  for  our 
brethren,  Thy  servants  and  children,  for  we  offer  them  in  the  name  of 
Jesus  Christ,  Thy  Son,  their  Lord  and  our  Lord.    Amen. 

— James  T.  Cleland 

(Used  annually  during  the  Symposium  on  Christian  Mission  since  1951) 


THE 
DUKE 

DIVINITY 

SCHOOL 

REVIEW 


The  Christian  Mission  Today 


Volume  31  Spring  1966  Number  2 


Contents 


A  Prayer  for  Missionaries,  hy  James  T.  Clcland Inside  Cover 

So  This  Is  Mission?  by  Mrs.  Porter  Brozvn 91 

Islamic  Reflections  on  Contemporary  Theology, 

by  Kenneth   Cragg 99 

The  Embassy  of  Christ,  by  Alan  Geyer 113 

The  Minister  as  the  Man-in-Between,  by  George  A.  Foster .  .  .  .  127 

Coffee  House  Christianity,  by  Jerry  H.  Gill 139 

The  Dean's  Discourse,  by  Robert  E.  Cushman 145 

Looks  at  Books 148 


Published  three  times  a  year  (Winter,  Spring,  Autumn) 
by  The  Divinity  School  of  Duke  University 


Postage  paid  at  Durham,  North  Carolina 


So  This  Is  Mission? 

Mrs.  Porter  Brown 
General  Secretary,  Board  of  Missions,  The  Methodist  Church 

There  is  no  point  in  my  taking  your  time  or  mine  today  in  making 
a  brief  for  the  renewal  of  the  church.  I  think  we  all  will  agree  that, 
if  the  church  is  to  get  even  a  toehold  in  the  world  in  which  we  are 
living,  it  is  going  to  have  to  change  its  ways.  The  ecclesiastical  word 
for  it  is  "renewal". 

It  is  difficult  for  us  to  contemplate,  but  the  fact  is  that  the  people 
who  are  making  the  impact  in  the  shaping  of  today's  world  are 
largely  people  who  have  only  the  most  casual  interest  in  religion  of 
any  kind.  They  are  acting;  we  are  making  pronouncements — on 
war,  poverty,  the  open  shop,  prayer  in  the  public  schools,  etc.  After 
these  have  been  published  in  The  Christian  Century  and  a  paragraph 
or  two  in  The  New  York  Times,  who  cares  what  we  have  said? 
Open  and  courageous  encounter  with  the  world,  in  witness  and  in 
renewal,  cannot  be  had  by  simply  making  pronouncements. 

The  attitude  of  many  churchmen,  when  confronted  with  the  need 
for  action  rather  than  words,  is  well  illustrated  in  the  old  question- 
and-answer,  "Mother,  may  I  go  out  to  play?"  "Yes,  my  darling 
daughter,  hang  your  clothes  on  a  hickory  limb,  but  don't  go  near  the 
water."    The  church  has  got  to  get  into  the  water. 

The  renewal  that  I  am  talking  about  is  the  kind  that  makes  for 
unrest  and  discomfort,  that  causes  hot  arguments  between  friends, 
that  makes  people  do  those  things  which  impel  Official  Board  mem- 
bers to  write  letters  to  the  General  Secretary  of  the  Board  of  Mis- 
sions saying  that,  if  the  Board  does  not  stop  stirring  up  trouble  and 
encouraging  such  unorthodox  behavior,  they  are  going  to  cut  off  their 
contributions.  Rather  than  being  frightened  or  discouraged,  I  be- 
lieve this  is  the  spirit  of  God  at  work  making  all  things  new. 

Historically,  the  mission  of  the  church  was  defined  as  personal 
salvation  and  evangelization,  "taking  the  Gospel  to  the  heathen". 
This  may  have  been  adequate  for  another  day ;  it  is  not  adequate  for 
today.    We  can  no  longer  put  our  trust  in  the  institution— the  estab- 

An  address  delivered  at  the  Symposium  on  Christian  Mission,  February  8, 
1966. 


92 

lishment.    The  church  of  this  day  exists  only  in  relation  to  something. 
It  must  b€  conceived  of  only  at  the  operational  level. 

Following  the  second  World  War,  as  you  know,  theology  re- 
treated into  a  safe  shelter  with  a  transcendent  God  in  charge.  This 
was  natural.  But  time  has  shaken  that  shelter  and  done  something 
to  that  God.  Some  say  He  is  dead.  Some  say  He  is  different.  Or, 
as  a  smart  Jewess  said  to  us  recently,  "God  isn't  dead ;  maybe  he 
has  just  removed  Himself  out  of  your  churches."    Maybe  He  has. 

D.  T.  Niles  has  asked  the  question,  "Where  today  is  Jesus  of- 
fering Himself?"  And  answered,  "Sometimes  in  the  most  unexpected 
places."  I  submit  that  today  He  may  be  offering  Himself  in  a 
court  of  law,  where  a  defense  attorney  is  pleading  for  the  life  of  a 
human  being;  or  in  the  office  of  a  housing  authority,  where  a  con- 
cerned citizen  is  protesting  the  presence  of  rats  and  the  lack  of 
toilet  facilities  in  a  slum  dwelling;  or  in  the  armories  in  New  York 
City,  where  two  hundred  people  sought  refuge  from  the  cold  in  zero 
weather  because  their  buildings  had  no  heat  last  week;  or  in  Missis- 
sippi, where  a  group  of  sometimes  bearded  or  black-stockinged  col- 
lege kids  are  helping  underprivileged  citizens  to  register  to  vote. 
Jesus  may  be  offering  Himself  in  some  of  our  closed,  ingrown  church 
edifices,  only  to  say,  finally,  "I  never  knew  you." 

If  we  are  to  be  the  Church,  the  new  voice  in  mission,  we  must 
become  sensitive,  listening  people,  seeking  to  find  where  God  is  at 
work,  and  then  become  obedient  channels  of  service  in  that  work. 

Where  and  to  what  must  the  Church  relate  itself?  I  will  be 
specific.  Where  there  is  war.  Does  the  fact  that  my  government  is 
involved  in  war  in  Viet  Nam;  that  innocent  men,  women,  and 
children  are  dying  every  day;  that  rice  fields  are  being  burned,  and 
food  that  would  keep  people  from  starving  is  being  destroyed;  con- 
cern me  as  a  Christian  in  mission?  Am  I  agonizing  before  God  for 
my  government  and  the  United  Nations,  that  they  may  be  led  to  a 
settlement  ? 

Do  I  remember  that  I  am  part  of  the  family  of  God  when  I  think 
of  my  millions  of  brothers  and  sisters  in  China,  to  whom  I  cannot 
even  speak?  Do  I  love  my  enemies  even  if  they  live  in  Moscow? 
Is  this  mission? 

What  about  the  famine  in  India  ?  Am  I  affected  by  the  knowledge 
that  not  thousands  but  millions  of  people  are  going  to  starve  to  death 
in  India  this  year?  Our  government  now  estimates  that  one  bushel 
of  wheat  out  of  every  six  will  have  to  go  to  India  this  year,  and  yet 


93 

they  will  starve.  This  is  only  one  of  many  illustrations  I  could  use 
to  ask  again  whether  this  is  mission? 

What  of  the  poverty  and  unemployment  in  the  United  States; 
the  drug  addiction  among  the  desolate  young  of  our  cities ;  alcoholism 
at  all  strata  of  our  society ;  my  callousness  and  lack  of  concern  for 
my  brother  if  he  is  in  trouble;  dishonesty  in  high  places,  often 
among  official  members  of  our  churches ;  indifference  about  the  em- 
ployment, health,  and  housing  of  the  poor,  while  others  are  making 
inordinate  profits ;  the  denial  of  the  rights  of  citizenship  to  some  of 
our  population?  Is  it  the  concern  of  the  Church  that,  even  in  our 
affluent  society,  the  rich  are  getting  richer  and  the  poor  are  getting 
poorer  ? 

Do  we  believe  that  we  are  one  people  of  one  Lord,  that  we  are 
drawn  together  by  knowledge  of  the  same  Christ,  and  that  we  have 
experienced  something  of  the  same  redeeming  love?  I  say  to  you 
that  if  we  deny  our  obligations  of  discipleship  at  these  points  then 
the  Church  as  we  have  it  will  die. 

If  we  are  to  be  in  mission,  there  are  other  areas  which  must  be 
our  concern.  I  will  just  enumerate  them,  for  you  have  heard  them 
talked  of  and  have  seen  them  written  about :  rapid  communications, 
the  technological  revolution,  urbanization,  secularization,  the  passing 
of  the  colonial  era,  hatred  and  suspicion  of  the  West.  All  of  these 
remind  us  forcefully  that  old  patterns  of  life  and  mission  just  will 
not  do. 

Some  of  us  believe  that  mission  must  mean  the  training  of  leader- 
ship to  operate  in  this  new  world.  We  have  moved  from  the  day  of 
the  general  practitioner,  who  treated  everything  from  corns  to  dan- 
druff ;  where  we  could  buy  anything  from  cheese  to  chicken  feed  and 
overshoes  in  the  general  store ;  where  all  eight  grades  were  educated 
in  one  room  with  one  teacher ;  when  it  took  three  months  to  get  from 
New  York  to  Tokyo.  Most  of  us  know  and  accept  that  there  must 
be  change  in  all  areas  of  life.  We  live  in  houses  with  all-steel 
kitchens.  We  drive  air-conditioned  cars  with  seat  belts  and  col- 
lapsible steering  wheels.  We  have  IBM  computers  tell  us  what  we 
owe  the  government.  And  yet  we,  the  same  people,  are  content  to 
operate  a  Board  of  Missions  under  an  aim  that  was  written  by  John 
R.  Mott  forty  years  ago. 

I  have  on  my  desk  right  now  letters  from  members  of  the  Board 
of  Missions  complaining  about  our  reexamination  of  the  present 
"Aim  of  Missions",  In  no  other  field  would  anyone  say  that  all 
was  known  in  1928  that  was  ever  going  to  be  known.    Or  that  every- 


94 

thing  was  known  that  was  ever  going  to  be  known  in  1966,  for  that 
matter.  Yet,  they  behave  as  if  this  were  true  in  the  area  of  theology 
and  church  administration.  Now,  thank  God,  this  is  not  true  of 
everyone.  There  are  many,  many  committed  churchmen  today 
courageous  and  vocal  in  their  desire  to  see  true  renewal.  I  believe 
we  are  getting  it.  Whether  we  are  getting  it  fast  enough  may  be 
another  question.  We  are  talking  about  the  laity  in  mission.  Why 
don't  we  use  the  skilled  layman  in  the  areas  of  his  skill?  When  a 
man  wants  to  witness,  we  say  teach  a  Sunday  school  class.  But  he 
has  skills  in  selling  intangibles  or  in  public  relations  or  writing 
publicity,  etc. 

You  no  doubt  have  gathered  that  I  am  concerned  for  the  whole 
man.  I  believe  that  Christ  is  sufficient  for  all  of  life ;  that  if  I  am  a 
disciple,  I  must  be  a  missionary ;  that  I  must  proclaim  by  deed  as 
well  as  by  word  His  saving  grace  for  ALL  OF  LIFE.  It  is  our 
job  as  church  leaders  to  help  make  possible  that  proclamation  in  the 
most  effective  way. 

In  our  conviction  that  there  must  be  change,  there  is  danger  of 
sweeping  the  little  chicks  out  with  the  eggshells.  We  say  that  the 
world  is  getting  so  close  together  that  our  problems  are  common 
ones.    This  is  true,  but  with  exceptions. 

Nations  are  the  same,  having  great  cities  and  agricultural  areas, 
but  they  are  different  too.  Japan  and  the  United  States  are  alike 
and  yet  not  alike.  India  and  Brazil  and  the  United  States  and 
other  countries  are  being  urbanized,  yet  there  are  millions  of  people 
still  living  on  the  land  or  in  villages,  and  they  will  continue  to  live 
that  way  for  a  long  time  to  come.    We  must  not  forget  them. 

The  impact  of  similar  forces — such  as,  cybernation,  secularization, 
intellectual  revolutions,  etc. — is  being  felt  in  almost  all  countries.  But 
because  of  differing  cultural  backgrounds,  they  are  not  producing 
uniform  results.  Life  would  be  much  simpler  if  we  could  put  all 
people  into  the  same  mould,  but  we  cannot.  One  of  our  great  dan- 
gers in  planning  is  the  tendency  toward  depersonalization.  We  shall 
do  so  at  our  peril  if  we  assume  that  a  Japanese,  a  Rhodesian,  and  a 
South  American  are  alike  and  can  be  compelled  to  fit  into  our  one 
program.  We  shall  also  become  impotent  if  we  fail  to  recognize  and 
value  the  differences  in  ancient  cultures  and  religions  of  such  coun- 
tries as  China  and  India  and  the  emerging  countries  of  Africa. 

No  more  can  we  have  one  National  Division  approach  to  prob- 
lems. The  needs  of  the  people  living  in  Harlem  and  the  people 
living  on  a  reservation  in  Montana  or  in  the  mountains  of  Appa- 


95 

lachia  are  not  the  same.  All  of  this  leads  me  to  the  obvious  con- 
clusion that  we  cannot  be  tied  to  an  organization  and  administrative 
details  if  we  are  to  be  the  Church  in  the  world.  If  geographic  loca- 
tion is  no  longer  a  deciding  factor  in  planning,  we  should  move  from 
that  kind  of  concept  into  a  functional  method  of  operation.  This  the 
Board  is  attempting  to  do  through  functional  secretaries  skilled  in 
specific  areas.  If  the  inner  city  or  the  rural  areas  need  special  knowl- 
edge and  skill,  then  the  Board  should  provide  training  to  equip  both 
clergy  and  laymen  to  serve.  This  we  are  planning  to  do  under  the 
MUST  program  (Methodists  United  for  Service  and  Training)  for 
training  leadership  through  direct  in-service  experience  in  the  city 
and  through  the  Hinton  Rural  Life  Center  training  program.  Both 
of  these  are  Methodist  seed-financed  but  operated  on  an  interde- 
nominational basis,  with  Bill  Webber,  of  God's  Colony  in  Man's 
World,  directing  MUST  (Metropolitan-Urban  Service  Training) 
in  the  city  area  and  Cornelia  Russell  at  Hinton. 

We  believe  that  missionaries  can  no  longer  stand  aloof  from 
political  and  social  needs  either  in  the  United  States  or  overseas. 
This  may  prove  costly  both  in  personnel  and  money.  The  Board  of 
Missions  is  feeling  the  loss  of  financial  support  because  of  its  position 
on  social  issues,  where  we  feel  we  must  take  a  stand  if  we  are  not 
to  betray  our  Lord. 

The  Church  must  find  a  more  adequate  way  of  using  its  lay 
apostolate — men  and  women — who  want  to  give  a  portion  of  their 
lives  to  the  service  of  the  Church  either  at  home  or  overseas.  The 
Peace  Corps  has  made  it  crystal  clear  that  people  can  be  challenged 
to  the  servant  role  in  the  interest  of  their  fellowmen.  What  is  the 
matter  with  our  system  that  we  cannot  get  the  same  kind  of  response  ? 
Do  we  have  too  much  creaking  old  machinery  to  which  we  cling 
and  which  is  hampering  us  in  making  the  witness  we  are  being 
called  to  make? 

When  some  of  you  fellows  haven't  anything  much  else  to  do,  I 
wish  you  would  sit  down,  wipe  from  your  minds  all  present  Church 
structures,  and  draw  up  a  plan  for  the  proclamation  of  the  Gospel 
and  the  witness  of  service  on  which  you  would  like  to  see  the  Church 
embark.  Then  send  it  to  me. 

There  are  some  exciting  pilot  projects  now  in  operation :  the 
teams  in  the  Congo  and  Bolivia,  doctors  giving  service  of  a  year  or 
so  at  their  own  expense  where  needed ;  a  missionary  asking  to  be 
removed  from  the  active  list  of  missionaries  so  he  can  help  a  govern- 
ment in  its  agricultural   development   plan;   another  who   wants   to 


96 

retain  his  status  as  a  missionary  but  not  be  paid  a  salary.  He  thinks 
he  can  share  his  faith  better  raising  chickens,  marketing-  his  produce, 
talking  with  the  people  about  how  to  raise  better  chickens  that  will 
produce  more  eggs,  etc. 

What  is  the  future  of  the  missionary?  I  don't  know.  I  do  know 
that  there  are  yet  millions  of  people  who  have  never  heard  of  Christ. 
There  are  millions  still  sick  and  ignorant  and  hungry.  There  are 
opportunities  to  witness  in  the  secular  world  which  we  have  never 
really  explored.  The  job  is  still  with  us;  our  task  is  to  find  the 
way  to  do  it. 

Up  to  now,  it  seems  to  me,  we  have  been  long  on  the  gathering 
into  our  own  churches  in  tight  little  segregated  groups — racially, 
economically,  socially,  denominationally — and  into  our  seminaries, 
pouring  over  theological  and  philosophical  theories.  It  is  time  that 
we  put  more  time  in  learning  how  to  scatter  into  the  world. 

The  essential  precondition  is  that  we  all  remember  constantly  that 
the  mission  is  Christ's,  not  ours.  For  that  reason  it  transcends  our 
organizations.  We  all  stand  alike  under  His  judgment  and  mercy, 
and  none  can  claim  finality  or  perfection.  To  seek  first  to  safeguard 
the  interests,  the  activities,  the  sphere  of  influence  of  our  church,  our 
mission  board,  our  confessional  body  is  in  the  end  a  denial  of  mission, 
a  refusal  to  be  a  servant. . . .  We  must  ask  of  any  proposal  for  new 
work,  new  developments,  new  patterns  of  cooperation,  not  'How  will 
this  affect  us?'  but  'What  is  God's  will  in  this  situation?'  Since  the 
mission  is  not  ours  but  Christ's,  any  kind  of  claim  to  the  sole  control 
of  any  area  in  the  interests  of  one  ecclesiastical  body . . .  seems  to  us 
incompatible  with  a  recognition  of  our  common  calling  in  Christ. . . . 
(Gibson  Winter) 

Since  the  light  has  dawned  in  both  the  Catholic  and  the  Protestant 
churches,  and  we  are  aware  that  our  Lord's  prayer  ''that  they  may 
be  one  so  that  the  world  may  believe"  can  become  reality  if  we  want 
it  badly  enough  to  sacrifice  our  parochialism  in  the  interest  of  that 
unity,  I  believe  a  new  day  of  mission  is  upon  us.  Let  us  not  back 
away  from  it. 

At  the  invitation  of  the  Pope,  through  the  Secretariat  for  Unity 
in  Rome,  three  American  women  were  asked  to  participate  with 
thirteen  other  Protestant  women  and  fifteen  Roman  Catholic  women 
from  around  the  world  in  a  consultation  on  "The  Role  of  Women  in 
Today's  World"  during  the  last  session  of  Vatican  Council  IL  I  was 
privileged  to  be  one  of  the  three  American  women. 

One  of  the  Catholic  leaders  confessed  that  Catholic  women  were 
not  experienced  in  organizing  for  action.     The  meeting  itself  was  a 


97 

new  experience.  She  commented  on  other  innovations.  The  Mass 
was  a  new  experience  for  all  of  us.  When  the  officiating  priest  asked 
for  prayers  from  the  congregation,  including  the  Protestants,  and  we 
sang,  "Come  by  Here"  (Kum-Ba-Yah),  while  two  women  carried 
the  wine  and  the  bread  for  Communion  to  the  altar,  we  Protestants 
also  knew  we  were  in  a  new  day. 

The  question  of  the  place  of  women  in  the  church  came  to  the 
floor  of  the  Vatican  Council  only  when  the  subject  of  "The  Church 
in  the  Modern  World"  was  discussed.  The  clergy  had  a  bad 
conscience  when  they  had  to  be  reminded  that  women  are  also  part 
of  the  church.  However,  the  new  role  of  women  within  the  church 
and  the  new  possibilities  for  ecumenical  contacts  were  explored 
freely  and  honestly  at  the  consultation. 

All  of  the  women,  Protestants  and  Catholics  alike,  were  hungry 
for  fellowship  and  the  opportunity  to  find  together  the  place  of 
women  in  the  new  world  of  cybernation,  the  family  in  a  changed 
society,  the  status  of  the  working  mother,  the  Christian  responsibility 
for  social  issues,  and  the  role  of  the  lay  apostolate  in  the  church. 

A  high  point  in  the  entire  period  was  attendance  at  the  session  of 
the  Vatican  Council  on  October  28,  1965,  when  five  important 
schemata  were  voted.  Witnessing  the  display  of  medieval  splendor 
which  accompanied  the  ceremony  of  the  voting,  which  was  done  by 
IBM  cards  and  counted  by  machines,  and  the  celebration  of  the  Mass 
by  Pope  Paul,  I  was  a  little  shaken  with  uncertainty  about  where 
Protestants  and  Catholics  could  find  common  ground. 

Then  I  remembered  preceding  days — days  of  mutual  sharing  of 
hymns  and  prayers,  days  of  deep  concern  as  people  of  God  for  the 
life  of  the  Church — and  I  became  convinced  again  that  there  would 
be  a  day  when  our  Lord's  prayer  that  "they  may  be  one  even  as  your 
Father  and  I  are  one"  could  become  reality. 

Arthur  Moore  in  WORLD  OUTLOOK  observes,  "Vatican  H 
says  clearly  that  reformation  is  not  something  that  took  place  in  the 
16th  century  (or  the  18th,  or  whenever  we  date  our  own  institutional 
beginning).  Reformation  is  now  and  always,  and  it  is  never  easy. 
By  the  light  of  Vatican  11,  we  can  see  how  dim  our  torches  have 
grown  and  how  sound  asleep  we  have  fallen  while  waiting  for  the 
bridegroom." 

And  Albert  Outler,  a  Methodist  contribution  to  the  Council  of 
which  we  should  be  justly  proud,  writes,  "In  a  world  literally  perish- 
ing for  redemptive  love,  we  all  have  need  of  mutual  exhortation  and 


98 

each  the  right  to  rejoice  at  all  charisms  of  the  Spirit — now  so 
abundant  in  your  midst — and  hope  for  their  full  fruition. 

"There  will  be  no  more  meetings  of  this  sort  again  in  our  lifetime. 
Our  ways  from  here  lie  in  a  thousand  directions — all  in  God's  keep- 
ing, thank  God.  The  splendors  of  Vatican  II — this  strange  interlude 
when  we  have  been  so  strangely  one — will  fade  and  be  filed  in  the 
archives  of  our  memories.  But  a  new  advent  of  the  Holy  Spirit  has 
happened  in  our  world  in  our  time — an  epiphany  of  love  that  has 
stirred  men's  hearts  wherever  they  have  glimpsed  it  incarnated.  .  .  ." 

To  quote  Dr.  Outler  further,  "Our  confidence  is  not  in  ourselves, 
our  vocations  are  not  for  ourselves  and  cannot  be  exercised  by  our- 
selves. We  are  Christ's  and  our  mission  is  in  and  for  the  world  for 
which  Christ  died." 

Let  us  place  a  priority  on  compassionate  concern  for  people — 
pastoral  care,  and  on  learning  to  witness  to  a  Gospel  of  love  and 
redemption,  of  reconciliation,  and  of  hope  to  a  nearly  hopeless  world. 

Let  us  get  out  of  these  big,  affluent,  mouldy  edifices  built  for  a 
day  when  people  lived  generation  after  generation  in  the  same  place 
and  be  on  our  way  as  pilgrims  confident  that  the  work  we  do  is  His. 
We  are  His  and  those  whom  we  serve  are  His  also,  wherever  they  are 
and  under  whatever  conditions. 

So  what  is  mission?  It  is  to  be  obedient  to  the  servant  Lord. 
There  we  must  leave  it,  trusting  Him  to  bring  the  harvest. 


Islamic  Reflections  on 
Contemporary  Theology 

Kenneth  Cragg 

Visiting  Professor  of  World  Christianity,  Union  Theological  Seminary 

"And  when  My  servants  question  thee  (i.e.  Muhammad)  con- 
cerning Me — I  am  near  to  answer  the  call  of  the  caller,  when  he  calls 
to  Me :  so  let  them  respond  to  Me  and  let  them  believe  in  Me."  So 
runs  Surah  2:  186  of  the  Qur'an.  The  verse  is  quoted  by  Rashid 
Ahmad  in  an  article  contributed,  from  within  Islam,  to  a  recent  sym- 
posium of  articles  in  Twentieth  Century^  on  the  "mortuary 
theology".  It  is  worth  pondering.  For  it  suggests  that  in  the  end  we 
are  closer  to  the  issues  when  we  speak  to  God,  rather  than  about 
Him.  The  issue  is  not  ultimately  faced  in  merely  discursive  terms, 
so  that  the  loss  of  God  (if  such  it  be)  can  never  be  simply  the  end 
of  an  idea.  At  least,  the  Quranic  instinct  here  is  to  direct  the 
questioner  into  'Godwardness'  as  an  activity.  "I  am  near  to  answer 
the  call  of  the  caller."  Men  will  never  be  'callers'  of  God,  that  is, 
theologians  with  doctrines  and  affirmations,  until  they  are  'callers 
upon  Him'  with  yearnings  and  doxologies.  For  God,  in  the  mag- 
nificent phrase  of  Hebrews  4:13,  is  "He  with  whom  there  is  to  us 
the  word."  It  is  in  'addressability,'  the  Qur'an  insists,  that  the  re- 
ality of  God  is  to  be  known.  Such  'addressability'  is  only  the  other 
side  of  'responsibility',  our  capacity,  that  is,  to  kindle  to  the  blessed 
accessibility  of  the  ultimate  and  the  eternal. 

Our  purpose,  however,  from  these  beginnings,  is  not  primarily 
to  analyze  or  retail  Muslim  expressions  of  reaction  to  our  Western 
pre-occupation  with  the  survival  of  God.  Our  title,  deliberately  is 
'Islamic,'  rather  than  Muslim.^  The  time  is  hardly  ripe  for  any 
discussion  of  what  Muslims  say  on  these  themes.  Rashid  Ahmad  is 
only  taken  here  as  a  sample  and  portent.  But  it  is  both  possible  and 
legitimate  to  ponder  the  sort  of  reaction  implicit  in  Islamic  faith  and 

An  address  given  in  York  Chapel,  April  13,  1966,  by  the  Warden  of  St. 
Augustine's  College,  Canterbury. 

1.  No.  1027  (Autumn,  1965). 

2.  The  distinction  between  'Islamic'  and  'Muslim'  is  a  very  useful  one :  the 
former  has  to  do  with  the  ideological,  the  ideal,  the  definitive,  within  Islam ; 
the  latter  with  the  actual,  the  empirical,  what  obtains  among  particular 
Muslims,  approximating,  more  or  less,  to  the  authentic. 


100 

outlook,  and  it  is  entirely  feasible  to  venture  some  formulation  from 
without  of  what  that  reaction  will  involve  and  its  likely  direction  of 
concern.  For  both  are  readily  ascertainable  from  the  themes  and 
emphases  of  the  Qur'an.  There  is,  of  course,  plenty  of  'secular'  ex- 
perience within  the  Muslim  world  and  some  very  deliberate  oc- 
casions of  'secularization'  of  the  state,  as  in  Turkey  under  Atatiirk. 
But  this  political  movement  towards  the  'secular'  should  be  carefully 
distinguished  from  'secularization'  in  the  total  sense,  the  will  to 
relativize  all  existence  and  to  exclude  the  theological,  the  ontological 
or  the  metaphysical  dimension  (however  it  be  termed),  and  with  it  to 
banish  as  irrelevant  and  demode  the  whole  Godwardness  of  human 
life,  technology  and  experience.  For  Islam,  by  its  very  nature, 
stands  in  and  with  the  conviction  that  "there  is  no  god  but  God" 
and  that  all  relativities,  therefore,  must  confess  and  acknowledge 
their  partiality  under  Him,  which,  of  course,  they  cannot  do  if  their 
pluralism  is  all.  Islam,  as  long  as  it  is  true  to  itself,  will  never 
'secularize'  in  those  terms.  Our  purpose,  then,  is  to  reflect  on  the 
implications,  of  this  'Islamic'  passion  for  unity  and  sovereignty  in 
God,  for  the  current  'Western'  scene,  where,  for  some  time,  there 
has  been  the  sinister  assumption  (to  use  Chesterton's  familiar  para- 
dox) that  "everything  matters,  except  everything"  and  where  some 
theologians  are  vociferously  finding  in  this  exclusion  of  ultimacy 
both  a  virtue  and  a  liberating  wisdom. 

The  Theme  oj  God  Belongs  to  All 

A  heading  that,  surely,  is  redundant,  Cela  va  sans  dire.  One 
would  think  so.  But  one  of  the  strangest  aspects  of  current  theologi- 
cal exchanges  in  the  Christian  West  is  their  almost  entire  neglect  of 
other  faiths  as  having  an  'interest'  in  their  content  and  direction. 
The  death  of  God,  we  might  say,  is  not  to  be  unilaterally  announced. 
So  our  first  task  here,  which  ought  not  to  have  been  necessary,  is  to 
plead  for  some  Western  attention  to  other  religions  in  these  matters. 
We  must  beware  of  assumptions  that  are  marked  unmistakably  with 
the  legend  'Made  in  technology',  at  any  rate  to  the  extent  that  they 
ignore,  and  perhaps  despise,  the  whole  significance  of  the  world's 
religions.  We  must  have  a  mind  for  the  psychology  of  human  rela- 
tionships and  beware  of  a  kind  of  perpetuated  'imperialism'  of  aur 
secularized  and  secularizing  assumptions.  We  in  the  West  must  be 
on  our  guard  lest  we  try  to  subdue  all  humanity  to  what  is  no  more 
than  the  rule  of  our  super  ego.     As  O.   Mannoni  has   written   in 


101 

Prospero  and  Caliban,^  other  cultures  may  well  "accept  everything 
in  detail  and  refuse  our  civilization  as  a  whole".  There  is  too  much 
about  our  recent  thinking,  as  in  A.  Van  Leeuwen's  Christianity  and 
World  History*  that  is  in  grave  danger  of  seeming  like  the  persistent 
and  unhappy  arrogance  of  Western  man,  his  assumption  (threaten- 
ing to  all  human  dignity,  his  own  included)  that  he  was  born  and 
taught  to  set  the  course  and  call  the  tune  for  all  mankind.  It  is,  no 
doubt,  true  that  technology  shapes  all  societies  on  all  continents  and 
that  its  impact  has  an  irreversible  and  irresistible  quality.  This  fact 
of  'Westernization'  of  the  world  is  not  in  question.  Yet  'Westerniza- 
tion' of  the  whole  is,  plainly,  a  misnomer  and  we  must  give  due,  and 
shall  I  say  humble,  weight  to  this  truth  of  our  whole  humanity.  We 
need  to  listen  as  well  as  to  lecture,  to  hearken  rather  than  to  hector. 
The  world  of  the  religions  in  Asia  and  Africa  has  more  significance 
than  to  be  treated  as  an  'adolescence'  outgrown  simultaneously  with 
our  arrival  in  technocratic  force.  If  this  is  to  state  the  matter  too 
passionately,  there  is  ample  reason  for  the  passion. 

Harvey  Cox,  for  example,  in  The  Secular  City  makes  a  visit 
of  less  than  two  pages  (out  of  276)  to  New  Delhi  and  "streaks 
away  from  it"  (as  he  puts  it)  "in  a  matter  of  a  few  hours"  to  Rome, 
Prague  and  Boston  (significant  cities  all,  to  be  sure),  having  dis- 
cussed only  one  facet  of  his  whole  problem,  namely  the  multi-religious 
political  community.  There  is  similar  short  shrift  to  the  real  core 
and  essence  of  Asian  faiths  in  Paul  Tillich.^  When  the  reader 
pauses  to  ponder  how  much  in  fact  he  has  encountered  the  other  faiths 
in  these  discussions  of  'encounter'  the  answer  has  to  be  extremely 
modest.  Dr.  Van  Leeuwen,  despite  the  wide  range  and  erudition 
of  his  Christianity  and  World  History,  does  not  bring  his  reader 
into  the  'experience'  of  Hinduism,  or  Buddhism  or  Islam,  into  the 
enlightenment,  the  self-disposition,  the  discipleship,  their  peoples 
seek.  Nor  does  he  appear  to  set  any  store  by  that  sort  of  concern. 
Rather,  he  writes : 

We  seem  (saving  word  maybe)  to  be  witnessing  the  arrival  of  a  new 
type  of  man  . . .  the  modern  technological  revolution  is  part  only  of 
a  larger  revolutionary  process  which  seems  likely  to  uproot  and 
destroy  the  corner  stone  of  all  human  society  as  we  have  known  it 
hitherto  . .  .  that  corner  stone  is  religion.® 

3.  Translated  from  the  Italian  (New  York,  1964),  p.  23.  A  very  penetrating 
work  on  the  psychology  of  colonization. 

4.  Translated  from  the  Dutch   (London,  1964). 

5.  E.g.  Clvristianity  and  the  Encounter  of  World  Religions,  1963,  and  Ulti- 
mate Concern:  Tillich  in  Dialogue,  1965. 

6.  Op.  cit.,  pp.  401-2. 


102 

In  this  same  context  the  faiths  of  Asia  and  Africa  are  "nothingness."' 
We  have  here,  it  would  seem,  a  very  serious  tendency  to  a  sort 
of  corporate  Western  'egoism'  in  the  assessment  of  human  existence. 
There  must  surely  be  a  distinction  always  alive  in  our  minds  between 
the  ubiquity  of  technology  on  the  one  hand  and  the  universal  pre- 
tensions of  pragmatism,  or  technocracy,  or  whatever  be  the  Western 
preference,  on  the  other.  This  distinction  surely  rides  with  very 
profound  considerations,  of  psychology  and  humility,  to  which  we  are 
indifferent  at  our  peril. 

It  is  striking  to  note  in  this  connection  that  the  deeper,  dramatic 
and  poetic,  'explorers'  of  the  West  in  the  West  have  been  involved, 
in  their  attitudes,  if  not  in  their  terminology,  and  in  their  unwitting, 
if  not  their  conscious,  expression,  with  the  burdens  and  wistfulness 
of  Eastern  thinkers.  They  are  raising,  perhaps  in  particular  Euro- 
pean form,  the  wistful  questions  of  ancient  Asia  about  the  meaning 
of  individual  personality  and  the  frustrations  of  desire.  Our  very 
technology  and  our  'scientism'  have  sharpened  the  'loss  of  selfhood' 
which  so  much  Eastern  philosophy  has  known  oppressively  over  long 
centuries.  Had  this  phenomenon  been  recognized  and  truly  mea- 
sured, it  might  have  stayed  the  eager,  sometimes  almost  vulgar,  op- 
timism and  Continental  parochialism  of  some  contemporary  theo- 
logians who  make  so  obvious  a  virtue  of  their  religious  independence 
of  the  rest  of  wistful  mankind  as  mirrored  in  the  ancestral  question- 
ings of  the  religious  world  beyond  the  white  orbit.  We  would  do 
well  to  get  away  from  the  notion  that  the  religious  future  of  man  is 
subject  only  to  our  prognostications  and  get  on  to  some  more  ter- 
restrial range  of  counsel  and  conjecture  about  the  future  and  God. 
When  we  do  so,  it  may  be  highly  salutary  for  our  thoughts  as  it 
will  be  healthy  for  our  humility.  One  random  example  must  here 
suffice.  We  take  it  from  the  discipline  nearest  to  hand,  namely 
Judaism.  Writing  in  Judaism,  Dr.  Eugene  Borowitz  early  this  year 
remarks : 

If  in  the  name  of  honesty  and  clarity  religion  must  undergo  a  major 
reconstruction,  should  there  not  first  be  an  honest  and  clear  statement 
of  how  one  can  be  certain  that  the  secular  mood  is  fundamental,  not 
superficial,  permanent,  not  ephemeral?^ 

The  question  is  most  apposite  and  the  raising  of  it  only  one  of  the 
services  Jewish  instinctive  thinking  holds  for  extra- Jewish  discourse 
about  God.    We  are  all  so  familiar  with  the  culture-stance,  the  time- 

7.  Ibid.,  p.  416. 

B.Judaism,  Vol.  15,  1  (1966),  p.  89. 


103 

subjectivism  of  earlier  writers,  we  are  often  quite  incapable  of 
recognizing  our  own.  We  know,  for  example,  that  Jefifersonian 
philosophy  was  shaped  by  the  necessity  to  shape  and  subdue  a  con- 
tinental unknown,  and  that,  therefore,  God  tended  to  be  conceived  as 
the  supreme  artificer,  the  great  fashioner  of  things  and  the  rewarder 
of  the  diligent.^  We  have  had  so  much  longer  than  previous  genera- 
tions to  appreciate  the  time-climate  within  which  our  thinking  pro- 
ceeds. Yet  all  too  readily  our  secularizers  persist  in  absolutizing 
themselves.  So  the  first  question  has  to  be  whether  in  truth  the 
religious  dimension  is  archaic,  passe,  outgrown  and  effete.  And  in 
this  fundamental  issue  we  must  beware  of  the  all-too-frequent  sug- 
gestion these  days  that  there  is  only  one  conclusion  open  to  the 
'honest'.  We  have  had  enough  of  this  adjective  as  a  quality  to  be 
denied  our  neighbors :  we  need  to  make  it  exclusively  apply  to  a 
searching  of  ourselves.  For,  plainly,  if  one  says  with  Altizer :  "They 
who  refuse  the  death  of  God  do  so  in  bad  faith" ^^  (and  this  refrain  is 
repeated  by  implication  in  all  such  phrases  as  "the  only  honest  thing 
to  do  is.  .  ."),  then  whoever  disagrees  is,  ipso  facto,  short  on  integrity 
(or  of  course  just  stupid — massive  ignorance,  if  not  vested  interest). 
But  serious  theological  discourse  is  foreclosed  if  all  who  diverge  from 
oneself  are  rogues  or  fools.  To  have  this  implication  is  to  damage 
all  intercourse  and  to  deprive  ourselves,  most  unhappily,  of  the 
relevance  of  our  neighbor's  obstinacy.  In  making  this  plea,  here,  for 
a  return  to  theological  courtesy,  modesty  and  gaiety  (the  word  is 
not  misplaced  for  there  is  so  much  stridency  in  our  time),  I  am  sim- 
ply drawing  attention  to  the  implications  it  has  for  a  more  patient, 
attentive,  Christian  sense  of  the  other  faiths,  in  their  ultimate  sig- 
nificance and  their  human  susceptibility.  Our  discussions  of  God  are 
not  domestic  matters.  Indeed  it  is  fair  to  say  that  where  theology 
is  the  concern  there  are  no  outsiders.  It  is  indeed  a  perverted 
notion  of  'election'  for  any  to  imagine,  or  imply,  that  they  have  a 
sole  prerogative,  not  to  serve  God,  but  to  bury  Him.  Much  of 
Western  secularity  gives  the  impression  of  such  a  delusion  and  must, 
therefore,  be  repudiated  not,  here,  for  merits  or  demerits  in  the 
argument  itself,  but  for  sheer  pretension  in  the  monopoly  of  it. 

If,  then,  we  need  to  hearken  much  more  to  the  silence  beyond 
our  words,  to  unspoken  religiousness  around  our  assertive  "beyond- 
Godness",  Islam  will  plainly  be  among  the  most  significant  areas  of 

9.  See,  for  example,  D.  J.  Boorstin :  The  Lost  World  of  Thomas  Jefferson 
(1948). 

10.  In  "Theology  and  Contemporary  Sensibility." 


1(H 

our  relationship.  For  there  is  no  greater  commitment  in  all  human 
history  to  the  sense  of  sovereign  Lordship  and  inalienable  Divinity. 
So  we  return  where  we  began,  to  a  desire  to  set  down  in  some  brief 
form  some  themes  of  an  Islamic  reaction  to  the  thinkers  and  pub- 
licists these  pages  have  in  mind.  The  hope  is  that  as  well  as  illustrat- 
ing the  potential  of  this  inter-religious  engagement  over  'religion', 
the  summary  themes  that  follow  will  also  serve  to  exemplify  and 
illustrate  the  content  of  Islamic  faith.  We  begin  with  the  fact  that 
was  first  in  Muhammad's  mission  and  dominant  in  the  whole  purpose 
of  the  Qur'an,  namely  the  fact  of  idolatry  as  cardinal  sin. 

Islam  against  Shirk 

The  insistent  and  perpetual  conoclasm  of  Islam  belongs  with 
the  whole  mysterious  'possibility'  of  idolatry,  and  it  is  important 
for  us  to  recognize  its  significance.  This  is  a  world  in  whicli  it  is 
freely  possible  for  men  to  be  idolaters,  and  the  very  meaning  and 
reproach  of  idolatry  is  that  it  is  an  alienation  from  a  true  worship. 
Both  facts  must  be  held  together.  If  there  is  no  proper  worth-ship, 
there  is  no  idolatry.  The  latter  is  inherently  a  perversion,  a  misdirec- 
tion of  what  rightly  belongs  elsewhere.  The  uncompromising  Islamic 
quarrel  with  the  idolatrous  exposes  this  profoundly  significant  fact 
about  the  God  in  Whose  Name,  and  from  Whose  claims,  it  censures 
the  idolater;  namely,  that  this  is  a  world,  a  human  world,  in  which 
false  worships  are  entirely  feasible,  feasible  as  part  of  the  whole 
situation  which  demands  and  admits  of  a  true  one. 

Much  is  written  these  days  as  if  it  were  a  'discovery'  that  men 
can  get  along  very  well  without  God.  There  is  no  'discovery'  in  this 
option :  it  has  been  implicit  always  in  the  very  nature  of  the  theologi- 
cal situation.  Possibly  in  purely  intellectualist  terms  God  is  no 
longer  seen  (or  in  that  sense  'required')  as  the  'cause'  of  what  we  are 
able  to  explain.  (Though  we  must  add  that  God,  rightly  understood, 
has  never  been  a  supersedable  'explanation'  that  science  would  pro- 
gressively eliminate.  God's  being  has  to  do,  by  contrast,  with 
explicability  as  a  whole,  with  the  dependability  and  rationality  of  a 
'cosmos'  within  which  'natural,'  i.e.  non-superstitious,  'causations' 
can  be  sought,  found  and  harnessed.)  But  a  God,  thus  intellectually 
invoked  for  causal  functions  and  now  dispensable,  has  always  been 
morally  and  spiritually  'negligible'  if  men  so  opted  and  desired.  For 
this  operative  'negligibility'  of  the  living  God  is  the  central  moral 
fact  of  man's  vocation  to  the  love  of  Him.  Thus  we  hear  too  much 
about   'liberation'   allegedly   resulting   from    the   elimination    of    the 


105 

Divine  dimension  and  of  'imposition'  while  it  lasted.  "Behold  I  stand 
at  the  door  and  knock"  has  always  been  a  deep  truth  of  the  Christ 
and  for  that  very  reason  an  abiding  'shape'  of  the  Divine  relationship 
to  man.  Nothing  is  clearer  from  the  Old  Testament  than  the  fact 
that  the  real  atheism  is  not  the  God  we  deny  so  much  as  the  God  we 
ignore,  the  God  for  Whom  we  make  substitutes  and  from  Whom  we 
divert  a  due  obedience.  He  is  at  once  the  God  Who  can  only  be 
'had'  as  God  in  a  free  worship  and  from  Whom  to  pseudo-gods  we 
may  turn  at  our  behest.  As  the  Qur'an  has  it,  "there  is  no  com- 
pulsion in  religion,"  and  there  is  nothing  involuntary  in  the  kingdom 
of  Heaven. 

To  this  fact  of  the  theological  'situation'  we  are  clearly  and 
urgently  directed  by  the  Islamic  controversy  with  the  idolaters.  Men 
may  embrace,  if  they  so  intend,  their  plural,  selfish,  separatist,  'abso- 
lutes' falsely  so  invoked  and  served.  Thus  the  very  credal  con- 
fession of  the  living  God,  the  right  ultimate,  the  worthy  absolute,  can 
only  be  made  in  a  negative  repudiation  of  the  false  deities.  "There 
is  no  god"  stands,  then,  as  the  necessary  prelude  to  the  affirmation, 
"but  God."  And  it  is  not  a  denial  that  can  be  simply  and  effortlessly 
made  in  merely  technological  terms  or  from  'technocratic'  'freedoms'. 

That  ontological  declaration,  in  both  its  negative  and  positive  con- 
cern, "There  is  no  god  but  God,"  holds  within  itself  the  profoundest 
religious  issue.  "There  is  no.  .  ."  involves  as  a  statement  the  deepest 
struggle  for  the  transcendent.  For  the  'gods'  which  do  not  exist  yet 
do  exist.  A  fear  that  has  no  warrant  can  yet  terrorize.  Likewise  a 
worship  that  has  no  true  authority  can  yet  dominate,  asserting  and 
asserted  without  right.  "An  idol,"  says  St.  Paul,  "is  nothing,"  a 
non-entity.  Yet,  for  all  that,  the  'non-entity'  may  be  'had'  by 
perverse  or  mistaken  man  as  a  veritable  idol.  Idols  are,  in  fact,  the 
foci  of  men's  desertion  of  God.  And  while  a  sound  and  'rational' 
theology,  or  a  'secularity',  may  deny  or  scout  their  existence,  they  still 
epitomize  man's  waywardness.  This  of  course  is  the  reason  for  the 
significant  distinction  between  saying,  in  terms  of  the  Islamic 
Shahadah,  "there  is  no  god.  .  ."  and,  in  the  language  of  the  Decalogue, 
"having  none  other  gods  but"  Him.  The  whole  logic  of  Muhammad's 
career,  his  invocation  of  power  and  his  decision  to  reach  for  state- 
hood, are  bound  up  with  this  crucial  difference  between  the  preacher's 
denial  of  the  deities  and  the  apostle's  achievement  of  a  'dispossessing' 
of  them  by  and  in  his  listeners.  Or,  put  in  other  terms,  the  issue  of 
the   transcendence   of   God    is   not    merely   prepositional,    still    less 


106 

rhetorical.  It  requires  a  moral  and  spiritual  unification  of  the  soul's 
awareness  of  truth  and  troth.  It  is,  in  a  word,  'religious'.  Idols  will 
still  be  anarchically  'had'  by  men  long  after  they  have  been  credally 
exposed  or  intellectually  disqualified. 

This,  of  course,  is  the  reason  why  themes  of  theology  adinit  of  no 
neutrality.  The  "god  of  the  gap"  notion,  the  'god'  who  becomes 
progressively  redundant  with  the  increase  of  man's  empire  of  ex- 
planation, is  for  this  reason  so  sore  a  travesty,  so  trite  a  confusion. 
What  is  significant  is  the  god  of  the  no-vacuum,  (if  the  phrase  is 
feasible),  the  god,  that  is,  whom  men  will  'enthrone',  be  he  race,  class, 
profit,  party,  self,  business,  Baal,  Mammon,  Venus  or  Mars.  One 
cannot  look  to  these  to  abdicate  in  favor  of  a  kind  of  pragmatic 
neutrality,  where  men  will  enjoy  some  benign  sort  of  plural  tolerance 
of  diversified  preferences.  On  the  contrary,  the  confession  of  the 
pseudo-quality  of  all  false  absolutes  and,  what  is  even  more  crucial, 
their  dethronement  only  happen  in  the  confession  and  submission 
before  the  true,  a  conclusion  to  which  the  whole  inner  logic  of  Islam 
moves.  One  cannot  affirm  God  without  in  concept  and  loyalty  saying 
a  decisive  'No'  to  every  false  pretender.  And,  by  the  same  token,  it 
is  only  such  a  'No'  which  validates  and  preserves  the  substance 
within  those  false  'absolutes'  and  gives  them  their  authenticity  as 
relative.  For  there  are  no  idols,  however  primitive,  which  could  have 
acquired  that  perverted  status  without  a  relatively  proper  place  in 
human  life  and  love. 

All  these  lessons  are  latent  in  the  Islamic  militancy  against  Shirk, 
against  every  alienation  of  what  is  Divinely  due  so  that  it  is  falsely 
'rendered'.  They  are,  it  may  be  added,  exemplified  most  clearly  in 
the  explicitly  'religious'  field  itself.  Even  a  denunciation  of  deities 
can  become  itself  idolatrous :  we  may  use  God,  as  well  as  'gods',  to 
escape  Him.  As  Bonhoeffer  has  it,  he  who  is  guided  by  duty  alone 
will  find  himself  doing  duty  to  the  Devil.^^  That  religions  run  the 
perpetual  risk  of  establishing  the  most  chronic  idolatries  is  no  marvel ; 
it  is  the  hazard  of  their  meaning  and  their  business.  But  neither 
their  business  nor  their  hazard  are  understood  if  we  blithely  suppose 
that  the  one  cancels  out  the  other — which  seems  to  be  the  conclusion 
of  some  contemporary  thinking. 

So  we  return  to  ponder  the  Islamic  concern  about  the  idols.  It 
is  one  from  which  we  can  never  escape  into  'atheism'.  For  'atheism' 
has  meaning  (and  very  much  meaning  indeed)  only  as  a  controversy 
about  the  right  worship.     The  progress  of  religion  is  emphatically 

11.  See  /  Loved  This  People   (London,  1965),  p.  20. 


107 

strewn  with  the  wreckage  of  deities.  There  is  always  the  God  beyond 
God,  the  No  !  for  the  Yes !  and  the  Yes !  in  the  No !  But  it  is  Yes !  in 
the  end  and  only  so  the  case  for  the  No !  "The  death  of  God"  insofar 
as  it  has  meaning  is  a  theme  within  His  livingness.  And  'religion- 
lessness',  where  it  is  not  a  delusion  or  a  presumption,  is  none  other 
than  the  critical  self-awareness  of  faith.  There  is  much  to  justify 
the  claim  that  Islamic  concepts  of  Shirk  as  an  alienated  worship  in 
which  men  are  'falsified'  in  misdirected  'godwardness'  provide  a  re- 
markable and  still,  for  our  part,  little  used  touchstone  for  our  present 
concerns.  For,  as  the  Qur'an  implied  where  we  began,  questions  of 
God  are  really  issues  of  worship. 

'Signs'  and  Significance 

Another,  and  kindred,  field  of  Qur'anic  thought,  of  which  we  do 
well  from  outside  Islam  to  take  patient  stock,  is  that  of  "the  signs  of 
God".  From  one  angle  there  is  nothing  Biblically  new  or  unfamiliar 
about  this  emphasis.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  plainly  within  one  in- 
stinctive Hebraic  kinship.  The  realm  of  the  natural  order,  for  the 
Qur'an,  is  a  sphere  of  experience  of  mercy  and  compassion.  We 
have  to  do  with  events,  harvests,  pregnancy,  spring  and  autumn, 
wells  and  winds,  flocks  and  farms,  and  in  that  perennial  sequence  of 
'natural'  sustenance  and  'preservation'  are  invited,  if  we  are  observant 
and  grateful,  to  perceive  and  confess  a  related  grace.  There  is 
nothing  new  in  this  attitude  and  it  can  readily  be  dismissed  as  're- 
ligious' and  'enchanted'.  Yet  it  persists  and  we  with  it.  It  suggests 
that  there  is  a  sort  of  sacrament  in  which  the  natural  order  bespeaks 
another,  in  which  the  garden-gardener  relationship  (in  mutuality)  is 
acknowledged  for  a  'reciprocity'.  There  is  nothing  of  course  'un- 
scientific' in  this.  For  the  emotion  pre-supposes  the  exploiting  right 
and  competence.  Yet  it  is,  of  course,  profoundly  religious  and  con- 
stitutes another  of  those  persistent  simplicities  with  which  the 
Qur'anic  reader  is  confronted.  Nature,  he  is  told,  is  a  realm  of 
Divine  signs  in  which  the  events  of  the  one  realm  are  the  intimations 
of  another  and  where  we  are  most  'technological'  as  manipulators  we 
may  also  be  most  reverent  as  receivers  and  dependents. 

What  is  involved  here  can  perhaps,  with  some  risk,  be  brought  to 
focus  through  an  incidental  discussion  of  the  word  'profane'.  Let 
Harvey  Cox  take  over : 

Pro-fane  means  literally  'outside  the  temple',  thus  'having  to  do  with 
this  world.'  By  calling  him  'profane'  we  do  not  suggest  that  secular 
man  is  sacrilegious,  but  that  he  is  unreligious.     He  views  the  world 


108 

not  in  terms  of  some  other  world  but  in  terms  of  itself.  He  feels  that 
any  meaning  to  be  found  in  this  world  originates  in  this  world  itself. 
Profane  man  is  simply  this-worldly.^^ 

The  desire  here  to  penetrate  to  an  etymological  original  in  the  word 
is  quite  legitimate,  though  in  point  of  fact  profanus  is  already  in 
Latin  'sacrilegious',  'hostile  to  the  temple'.  If,  however,  we  want 
to  recover  implications  from  its  genesis  as  a  word,  we  had  better  do 
so  more  radically  and  doing  so,  find  a  clue,  slight  perhaps  but  yet 
entire,  to  our  whole  problem.  Pro  is  strictly,  not  'outside'  (cf.  extra) 
but  'in  front  of  or  'before'.  Pro-janum  is,  then,  'in  front  of  the 
temple'  and  by  etymological  device  would  invite  us  to  visualize  the 
world  in  which  the  temple  stands  as  the  porch  to  it.^^  So  then  the 
entire  world  makes  the  precincts  of  sanctity.  There  is,  extensively, 
around  the  shrine,  what  is  intensively  within  it.  (It  should  be  noted 
that  'profanity'  in  this  analysis  is  not  'confanity'  or  'f?.rfra-fanity'.) 
Then  the  sacred  is  not  some  abstraction  from  this  world  but  the  world 
itself  under  one  essential  aspect.  It  is  just  this  to  which  "the  signs 
of  God"  in  the  Qur'an  refer. 

From  this  perspective  we  begin  to  detect  the  fallacies  in  Cox's 
sentiments — fallacies  that  are  rampant  in  our  time.  We,  with  him, 
are  viewing  the  world  in  terms  of  itself,  but  these  do  not  exclude  a 
'eucharist'  within  the  visible,  a  sacramental  within  the  scientific. 
'Sacrilegious'  it  is  agreed  is  excluded.  Yet  ignoring  the  sacral,  which 
is  the  meaning  of  sacrilege  (if  ignoring  is  not  too  mild  a  word),  is, 
it  would  seem,  just  what  'secular'  in  Cox's  context  seems  to  be 
required  to  mean.  Meaning,  of  course,  "originates  in  this  world",  for 
that  is  where  our  senses  are ;  and  a  'sacramental'  perception  is  deeply 
this-worldly  but,  jor  that  very  reason,  must  pause  and  wonder,  stoop 
and  admire,  stay  and  praise.  If  by  'unreligious'  we  mean  a  utilitarian, 
obtuse,  or  simply  casual,  neglect  of  this  situation  then  we  are  neither, 
in  the  strict  sense,  pro-janum,  nor  human,  nor  scientific. 

Whether  or  not  the  particular  etymology  here  will  carry  all  that 
either  Cox  or  I  intend,  the  main  issue  is  unmistakable.  In  the  last 
analysis  the  whole  concept  of  the  'secular'  (not  sacrilegious)  depends 
upon  the  sacred.  We  cannot  have  the  one  posture  towards  reality  if 
there  is  no  other.  Were  'secularization'  so  one-sidedly  urgent  it 
could  never  have  been  identified  as  a  necessity.     It  is,  at  best,  a  cor- 

12.  Op.  cit.,  p.  60-1. 

13.  One  might  perhaps  compare  the  remark  of  Thomas  Trahcrne  ahout 
the  world  of  his  senses  as  "the  visible  porch  and  gateway  of  eternity." 


109 

rection  of  improper  piety  (of  which  more  a  paragraph  on),  at  worst 
a  tragic  misconception. 

So,  I  would  plead,  let  us  have  done  with  this  much  invoked 
'disenchantment'.  Whatever  Max  Weber  may  have  initially  meant 
by  this,  it  has  been  most  pathetically  distorted  by  our  contemporary 
"demise  of  God"  school  to  the  great  impoverishment  of  the  poetry, 
the  music,  the  joyousness,  even  the  impishness,  of  our  lives.  Since 
man  has  decided  no  longer  to  bother  about  them,  are  there  no  more 
any  mysteries?  The  world,  emphatically,  is  not  'disenchanted' — 
least  of  all  in  technology.  Let  us  invoke  St.  fixupery,  or  Dag 
Hammarskjold,  figures  of  the  modern  world  indeed,  and  ask  with 
them  why  it  should  be  supposed  that  men  with  their  machines  were 
only  'rehgiously  oriented'  while  they  remained  respectively  plough- 
men and  ploughs,  or  why  the  planets  should  be  fascinating  only  to 
shepherds  and  not  to  astronauts.  'Defatalization' ?  Yes!  The  end  of 
the  deus  ex  machina?  Yes!  But  the  end  of  perpetual  surprise?  No! 
Or  of  the  urge  to  be  cosmically  grateful  ?  No !  We  have  great  need 
to  distinguish  resolutely  between  a  world  subject  to  man  and  a  world 
devoid  of  God;  a  world  explained  and  exploited  by  science  and  a 
world  drained  of  religious  delight  and  reverent  awe.  For  they  are 
not  identical.  The  former  is  a  legitimate  and  exciting  fact,  the  latter 
a  fiction  of  a  damnable  opaqueness  of  human  sensitivity,  not  to  be 
exonerated  by  pleas  of  emancipation  from  'religion'.  What  is  valid 
in  secularization  is  not  rightly  identified  that  way. 

Where,  then,  does  its  validity  lie?  It  lies,  simply,  in  the  rejection 
of  the  dichotomy  the  other  way  round,  the  refusal  of  an  abstracted 
piety  which  fails  to  live  in  this  world,  which  either  through  timidity 
or  pride  withdraws  from  the  concreteness  of  daily  life  and  prefers 
some  kind  of  censure  or  aloofness  vis-a-vis  the  ordinary  world  of 
things  and  fellows.  This  is  the  context  in  which,  with  Bonhoeffer 
(otherwise  so  sadly  maligned  by  his  supposed  devotees),  we  may 
urge  a  holy  worldliness,  a  confidence  in  God  within  history  that 
need  not  shrink  from  present  situations  either  in  nostalgia  or  re- 
proach, a  will  fully  to  be  contemporary  and  to  receive  the  technologi- 
cal 'shape'  of  things  with  positive  energy  and  hope.  But  these 
postures  will  still  need  their  focus  and  their  'intensification'  in  cult 
and  prayer,  in  sacrament  and  song.  These  instruments  of  their 
expression,  however,  will  not  become  ends  in  themselves,  or  excuses 
for  withdrawal. 

You  may  remember,  in  Steinbeck's  Grapes  of  Wrath  the  old 
man's  burial  on  the  great  trek  and  the  fear  of  his  family  lest  they  be 


110 

suspected,  through  an  impromptu,  private  disposal  of  the  corpse,  of 
foul  play,  and  who,  accordingly,  insert  a  'clearing'  statement  with  the 
body  that  he  died  of  natural  causes  and  they  had  no  resources  for 
official  burial.  Then  one  of  the  women-folk  suggests  they  add  a  text 
to  this  recital,  "so",  as  she  explains,  "so  as  it'll  be  religious".  Every- 
thing valid  in  the  'secular'  protest  is  implicit  in  the  insistence  that 
these  acts  of  a  reverent  family  are  already  'religious'  and  that  no  texts 
or  flourishes  can  add  to  that  essential  quality.  Their  sense  of  awe  in 
the  midst  of  death,  their  simple  solidarities,  even  their  worthy  fears 
about  being  misunderstood,  their  urge  to  a  reverent,  'clean'  honesty — 
all  these  bear  unmistakably  the  mark  of  'religious'  integrity.  As  an 
addendum  "making  their  activity  'religious'  "  the  text  would  be  little 
short  of  blasphemous.  Or  as  Lincoln  might  have  put  it :  "We  cannot 
hallow,  ...  we  cannot  consecrate  this  ground.  .  .  ."  There  lies  the  es- 
sential irrelevance  of  the  artificially  'religious'  form  which  "can 
neither  add  nor  detract".  Nevertheless,  given  that  inner  quality,  the 
external  'token'  or  'rite'  or  'quotation'  (whatever  it  be)  may  serve  to 
'intensify'  and  communicate  the  intangible  emotion  and  seal  it  in  its 
bearers'  breasts. 

Or,  in  other  language,  one  cannot  absolutize  the  negation  of  the 
sacred;  one  can  only  castigate  its  perversion.  If  one  quotes  from 
Jesus,  for  example :  "The  sabbath  was  made  for  man,  not  man  for 
the  sabbath,"  the  second  clause  is  clearly  only  true  in  the  meaning  of 
the  first.  In  one  sense,  "man  is  made  for  the  sabbath ;"  he  is,  that  is, 
the  sort  of  being  for  whom  a  hallowing  of  intermittent  rest  is  due 
and  mete.  He  is  "made"  a  being  congenial  to  the  sabbatical  benedic- 
tion. If  this  is  not  so,  the  first  and  ruling  clause  also  collapses.  The 
point  becomes  clearer  if  one  says :  "Love  was  made  for  man,  not  man 
for  love."  Outside  the  import  of  the  first  clause  here,  the  second 
becomes  a  tragic  falsehood.  Or  consider  the  statement  so  apposite  to 
secular  science:  "Theory  is  made  for  experiment,  not  experiment 
for  theory."  The  first  clause  sets  down  the  paramountcy  of  empiri- 
cal investigation  which  no  mere  hypothesis  can  or  should  impede. 
Yet  empiricism  itself  is  impossible  except  there  be  some  theory,  albeit 
properly  subordinate,  to  prompt  and  suggest  experiment. 

It  is  in  something  of  this  order  that  "the  sacred  was  made  for  the 
secular,  not  the  secular  for  the  sacred,"  though  properly  in  this  case 
the  propositions  are  indeed  reversible:  "The  secular  is  made  for  the 
sacred,  not  the  sacred  for  the  secular."  But  the  really  imperative 
thing  is  that  they  be  seen  as  inseparable  and  the  choice  i^etween  the 
two  pairs  determined,  in  large  measure,  by  the  current  opaqueness  or 
obtuseness. 


Ill 

It  is  just  in  a  right  holding  together  of  our  hallowed  and  our 
exploitable  world  that  the  Islamic  concept  of  "the  signs  of  God"  in 
nature  may  truly  help  us.^^  Christianity,  for  internal  reasons  relating 
to  priesthood  and  grace,  has  been  of  all  the  monotheisms  most  prone 
to  tension  at  this  point.  Islam,  at  all  events,  and  Judaism  even  more, 
can  educate  us  in  a  better  sense  of  the  goodness  of  creation  and  the 
inter-dependence  of  both  the  dimensions  which  much  of  our  thinking 
has  lately  set  in  competition. 

This  theme  of  nature  is  important  for  another  reason.  There 
has  been,  in  quite  diverse  quarters  in  Christian  theology,  a  sharp 
imagined,  or  asserted,  cleavage  between  nature  and  history.  The 
God  of  the  Bible,  we  are  told,  is  "the  God  of  history,  not  the  God  of 
nature".  This  is  a  fantastic  verdict.  "The  heavens  declare  the 
glory  of  God,"  sang  the  psalmist.  "O  Lord,  how  manifold  are  Thy 
works,"  he  went  on  with  the  external  world  in  mind.  Truly  there  is 
the  'history' :  the  Exodus  and  the  Exile,  the  "holy  history"  in  which, 
as  the  Bible  declares,  God  is  disclosed,  directly  to  "His  people",  the 
participants  in  that  Exodus,  and  via  the  Scriptures  descriptively  to 
the  rest  of  us.  The  pivotal  New  Testament  history  is  experienced 
and  mediated  in  the  same  sense  and  there  is  incorporation  now  by 
re-enactment  in  the  kerygma  and  the  fellowship.  Yet  none  of  this 
displaces  or  repels  the  awareness  of  God  and  His  wisdom  accessible 
in  the  natural  order.  It  is,  moreover,  the  natural  order  which,  un- 
like the  sacred  history,  "makes  all  men  kin",  since  they  are  all  by 
immediacy  its  denizens.  There  are  endless  diversities  of  natural 
habitat,  but  there  are  no  "chosen  people"  in  respect  of  "life  out  of  the 
dust  of  the  ground".  "The  signs  of  God"  are  of  One  with  Whom 
indifferently  we  have  all  to  do.  There  is  no  adequate  consensus  to 
discount  them  in  our  private,  or  current,  refusal  or  inability  to  be 
impressed. 

Man,   the  Khalljah. 

Our  final  field  of  necessary  openness  to  Islamic  criteria  has  to  do 
with  Qur'anic  doctrines  of  man.  The  crucial  term  here  is  the 
khattfah  (Surah  2:30).  Man  in  creation  is  seen  Qur'anically  as 
God's  'deputy'.  He  actually  takes  the  place  of  God.  (The  more 
familiar  political  Caliphate  of  rulers  to  Muhammad  is  no  concern  of 
the  Qur'an.  What  matters  there  is  Adam's  'dominion'.)  Man  in 
the  world  is  seen  as  servant-master.     Not  the  one  without  the  other. 

14.  For  brevity  here  one  may  refer  to  the  writer's  The  Dome  and  the  Rock 
(London,   1964),  where  this  theme  is  more  fully  documented. 


112 

He  is  over  things  because  he  is  under  God.  His  being  in  mastery 
and  submission  belong  together;  the  stuff  of  his  kingship  is  the 
material  of  his  obligation.  This  leaves  room  for  all  that  is  valid  in 
the  'secular'  emphasis,  but  sees  it  within  the  claims  we  know  as 
'religious'.  Even  science  itself  may  be  seen,  in  a  vital  sense,  as  an 
activity  of  worship,  since  it  proceeds  always  by  a  self-surrendering 
fidelity  to  truth,  an  'oblation'  of  one's  mind  in  the  discipline  of  ob- 
jectivity. Certainly  the  works  of  science  applied  to  the  making  of 
cities,  the  shaping  of  civilization,  the  possession  of  the  good  earth,  are 
'responsible',  in  their  impact  in  the  human  situation,  to  criteria  be- 
yond the  mere  question  of  technological  feasibility.  It  is  all  'con- 
textual' and  broadens  out  into  the  economic,  the  social,  the  legal,  the 
cultural,  the  educational,  the  poetic.  In  all  these  realms  it  is  also 
on  the  ubiquitous  frontier  with  the  ultimate,  the  eternal,  and  with 
the  claims  of  an  accountability  that  is  more  than  utility,  more  than 
preference,  more  than  passivity,  more  than  politics.  Or,  if  it  is  only 
these  things,  they  and  it  are  idolatrous,  with  an  idolatry  that  not 
only  defies  God  but  denies  man.  For  in  the  last  analysis  we  shall 
only  know  what  we  mean  by  God  when  we  are  fully  alive  to  what  we 
mean  as  men.  The  Qur'anic  role  of  the  kfiallfah,  Adam,  is  the  point 
of  their  inter-section. 

For  many  contemporary  thinkers  the  world  of  man  is  somehow 
only  authentic  as  man  has  it  to  himself:  This,  finally,  is  what  'secu- 
larization' means.  There  is,  too,  a  corresponding  complaint  that  the 
old  world  of  Divine  presence  no  longer  makes  sense.  It  is  puzzling 
sometimes  to  understand  how  what  has  no  place  has  yet  to  be 
studiously  denied  and  outspokenly  talked  out.  Yet  the  puzzle  has  a 
disconcerting  secret  if  it  be  read  as  the  form  that  present  doubts 
have  required  our  experience  of  God  to  take.  If  so  the  latter  will 
yet  again  ripen  into  fresh  conviction,  not  by  the  loss  of  the  sacred  but 
by  the  recovery  of  the  secular,  not  by  any  antithesis  of  human  free- 
dom and  Divine  worship  but  by  the  single  repossession  of  both. 

Meantime  it  will  be  our  wisdom  to  refrain  from  a  pontifical 
Western  monopoly  of  the  diagnosis  of  man  and  a  proud  Western 
sufficiency  in  the  disposal  of  God. 


The  Embassy  of  Christ: 

The  Church's  Ministry  in  International 
Relations 

Alan  Geyer 

Director  for  International  Relations,  Council  for  Christian  Social  Action, 
United  Church  of  Christ* 

There  may  have  been  a  time  when  the  subject  of  Christianity  and 
international  relations  had  little  status  and  could  expect  only  a  cool 
reception  from  men  of  affairs.  But  recent  events  have  put  a  new 
face  on  the  subject :  it  is  now  definitely  "in" — it  has  status  and 
prestige.  The  remarkable  Convocation  on  Pacem  in  Terris  a  year 
ago  gave  it  a  very  big  boost.  Among  the  boosters  were  Vice-Presi- 
dent Hubert  Humphrey,  who  addressed  the  Convocation's  opening 
session  in  the  UN's  General  Assembly  Hall.  His  efifort  was  typically 
earnest,  impassioned,  and  long-winded.  When  he  at  length  con- 
cluded. Assembly  President  Alex  Quaison-Sackey  of  Ghana  sought 
to  compliment  the  Vice-President.  "Your  inspiring  words  tonight," 
he  said,  "have  reminded  me  of  other  memorable  speakers  whose 
eloquence  has  sounded  in  this  great  hall  in  the  past.  Eleanor  Roose- 
velt— may  she  rest  in  peace.  Dag  Hammarskjold — may  he  rest  in 
peace.  John  F.  Kennedy — may  he  rest  in  peace.  Nehru — may  he 
rest  in  peace.  Nikita  Khrushchev — may  he  .  .  .  uh  .  .  .  that  is  .  .  .  who 
has  also  spoken  here."  The  uncertainty  concerning  Mr.  Khrushchev's 
whereabouts  and  welfare  that  evening  just  three  months  after  his  fall 
from  power  made  the  invocation  of  his  memory  a  bizarre  intervention 
in  the  Convocation,  to  say  the  least. 

Last  fall,  Pope  Paul  VI  came  to  speak  in  the  Assembly  Hall.  It 
was  an  auspicious  occasion  not  only  for  Catholics  but  for  all  men  of 
religious  faith.  The  Pope  said :  "We  are  very  ancient ;  We  here 
represent  a  long  history;  We  here  celebrate  the  epilogue  of  a  weary- 
ing pilgrimage  in  search  of  a  conversation  with  the  entire  world." 
That  remarkable  phrase,  the  Church  as  a  "pilgrimage  in  search  of  a 
conversation  with  the  entire  world,"  is  my  point  of  departure  in  this 

*  Dr.  Geyer,  a  Methodist  minister,  was  formerly  chairman  of  the  Political 
Science  Department,  Mary  Baldwin  College,  Staunton,  Virginia.  He  is  the 
author  of  Piety  and  Politics  (John  Knox  Press,  1963). 


114 

paper.  Without  presuming  to  know  all  that  the  Pontiff  intended  by 
the  phrase,  I  find  it  filled  with  meaning  for  the  conception  I  have 
of  the  Church's  ministry  in  international  relations.  It  suggests  that 
the  Church  must  be  engaged  in  a  relentless  dialogue  with  the  political 
communities  of  all  the  earth. 

Reuel  Howe  has  written  that  both  religious  people  and  politicians 
tend  to  think  and  to  speak  monologically,  exaggerating  their  own 
claims  to  truth  while  falsifying  the  aims  and  character  of  their  op- 
ponents. "An  all  too  prevailing  attitude  among  church  people  is 
that  the  Church  has  much  to  say  to  the  world  but  that  the  world  has 
nothing  to  say  that  the  Church  should  hear.  .  .  .  Those  who  proclaim 
[the  Word  of  God]  have  as  much  responsibility  to  understand  the 
word  of  man  as  they  do  the  Word  of  God  in  order  that  they  may 
help  men  to  recognize  and  accept  their  need  of  God's  word."  Their 
great  need  is  to  open  themselves  up  to  "the  miracle  of  dialogue". 

To  say  that  Christianity  must  engage  the  world  of  nations  in  dia- 
logue is  to  say  that  both  religious  and  political  commitments  are 
important,  that  these  commitments  must  be  related,  but  that  neither 
must  swallow  up  the  other  because  each  needs  the  other.  God  speaks 
through  both,  not  just  through  the  Church.  Christopher  Fry's 
recent  play  about  Thomas  a  Becket,  Curtmanfle,  contains  a  striking 
dialogue  between  Henry  H  and  Becket,  then  serving  as  Chancellor 
but  whom  Henry  also  proposes  now  to  make  Archbishop  Canter- 
bury.    Becket  at  first  resists  the  invitation: 


BECKET 


HENRY: 


One  thing  is  simple. 
Whoever  is  made  Archbishop  will  very  soon 
Offend  either  you,  Henry,  or  his  God. 
I'll  tell  you  why.   There  is  a  true  and  living 
Dialectic  between  the  Church  and  the  state 
Which  has  to  be  argued  for  ever  in  good  part. 
It  can't  be  broken  off  or  turned 
Into  a  clear  issue  to  be  lost  or  won. 
It's  the  nature  of  man  that  argues; 
The  deep  roots  of  disputation 
Which  dig  in  the  dust,  and  formed  Adam's  body. 
So  it's  very  unlikely,  because  your  friend 
Becomes  Primate  of  England,  the  argument  will  end. 

....    Together  we  have  understood 

The  claims  men  have  on  us 

And  how  to  meet  them.     Whatever  your  office 

This  truth  is  unalterable,  the  truth  being  one. 


115 


BECKET: 


The  truth,  like  everything  else, 

being  of  three  dimensions, 
And  men  so  placed,  they  can  stake  their  lives 

on  the  shape  of  it 
Until  by  a  shift  of  their  position,  the  shape 
Of  truth  has  changed. 

But,  of  course,  Becket  finally  relents.  He  accepts  his  appoint- 
ment as  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  only  to  be  caught  in  the  power 
struggle  he  feared  and  finally  to  be  martyred.  Yet  Becket's  original 
insight  v\'as  profound.  There  are  three  dimensions  of  historical  truth. 
The  "shape  of  truth"  inevitably  changes  v^hen  one  moves  from  the 
religious  to  the  political  stance.  It  is  in  the  nature  of  man  and 
history  that  there  should  be  "a  true  and  living  dialectic  betvv^een 
the  Church  and  the  State  which  has  to  be  argued  for  ever".  God 
uses  each  order  to  judge  and  redeem  the  other,  just  as  the  enemies 
of  ancient  Israel  were  used  to  judge  and  redeem  her.  The  Church 
must  argue  with  the  State  whenever  the  State  claims  too  much  for 
itself.  The  State  must  resist  the  imperial  claims  of  the  Church  and 
must  be  prepared,  through  its  own  secular  witness,  to  show  the 
Church  the  meaning  of  justice  and  freedom. 

Christian  dialogue  with  the  world  of  nations  is  a  most  vital 
function  of  the  office  of  "ambassadors  for  Christ"  engaged  in  "the 
ministry  of  reconciliation".  It  is  but  a  slight  embellishment  of 
these  marvelous  phrases  of  St.  Paul  to  speak  of  the  Church  as  "the 
Embassy  of  Christ" — as  the  very  place  where  people  come  to  know 
what  human  relationships  are  intended  to  be,  above  and  beyond  all 
the  brokenness  and  bitterness  of  the  world  which  does  not  know 
itself  to  be  in  Christ.  I  am  not  a  theologian,  but  here  at  the  very  core 
of  Christian  faith  is  the  infinitely  creative  doctrine  which  unites 
theology  and  politics,  faith  and  power,  love  and  justice:  the  minis- 
try of  reconciliation. 

The  distinctive  work  of  the  Embassy  of  Christ  must  always  be 
done  in  the  very  places  where  personal  relationships  are  most  es- 
tranged. It  is  to  identify  with  the  stake  of  human  struggle  in  all  of 
its  hostility  and  anguish  and  alienation  and  fear.  Yet  so  often  and 
so  sadly  this  special  work  has  not  been  done.  The  Protestant 
churches  of  the  19th  and  early  20th  centuries  never  really  under- 
stood the  grievances  of  the  laboring  classes  in  America  until,  in  a 


116 

sense,  it  was  too  late — and  labor's  own  leadership  in  its  secular 
success  had  become  frankly  hostile  or  indifferent  to  the  church. 
White  Protestant  churches  never  mobilized  their  resources  to  redeem 
the  common  life  of  the  inner  city  until  they  had  run  away  and  left 
vast  ghettoes  of  the  black  and  the  poor.  Protestantism  never  seriously 
plunged  into  the  struggle  for  civil  rights  until,  as  Ralph  McGill  has 
put  it,  the  drama  was  nearly  over  and  there  was  only  a  bit  part  left 
to  play. 

What  is  the  distinctive  work  of  the  Embassy  of  Christ  in  inter- 
national relations?  I  cannot  give  you  the  memoirs  of  a  veteran  of 
this  ministry  speaking  from  his  long  experience,  but  only  the  testi- 
mony of  a  tenderfoot  as  to  his  aspirations. 

I 

The  first,  most  distinctive,  and  least  dramatic  task  of  the  Em- 
bassy of  Christ  is  to  nurture  its  own  people  in  the  disciplines  of 
dialogue  itself.  This  is  more  than  a  matter  of  pedagogical  method : 
it  is  a  whole-souled  cultivation  of  the  preconditions  of  authentic 
Christian  community  in  a  world  which  is  rapidly  losing  all  remnants 
of  tribal  community  under  the  onslaughts  of  technology,  mobility, 
and  revolution.  It  is  to  prepare  in  a  radically  new  way  for  the  en- 
counter of  person  with  person  in  ever-deepening  levels  of  mutual 
criticism  and  mutual  appreciation.  It  is  a  human  possibility  only  be- 
cause it  is  first  of  all  a  diznne  gift.  It  is  to  be  made  ready,  even  and 
especially  in  the  modern  world,  for  the  miracle  of  reconciliation.  It 
is  a  profoundly  grace-jid  nurture  in  which  men,  women,  and  chil- 
dren grow  in  their  capacities  to  articulate  the  fragments  of  truth 
which  they  perceive  and  to  do  so  with  courage  and  with  modesty ;  to 
listen  receptively  to  the  offerings  of  other  men,  women,  and  children 
to  the  common  treasury  of  the  conversation ;  and  to  he  responsive 
to  every  significant  possibility  of  agreement  and  action.  It  is  to  know 
when  to  stand  up  and  speak  and  when  to  sit  down  and  shut  up.  It  is 
to  make  possible  what  Martin  Buber  called  "experiencing  the  other 
side".  It  is  to  be  spiritually  equipped  to  face  controversy  creatively 
and  even  gratefully. 

This  may  not  sound  like  the  international  relations  ministry  of 
the  church.  It  seems  remote  from  the  substantive  issues  of  foreign 
policy.  And,  to  be  sure,  it  is  a  task  which  ranges  far  far  beyond  the 
feeble  resources  of  specialized  staffs  in  New  York  and  Washington 
and  all  of  the  social  commissions  whom  we  serve.   It  must  engage 


117 

pastors  and  laymen  throughout  every  aspect  of  the  life  of  congrega- 
tions and  the  wider  realms  of  church  life.  It  is  perhaps  more  the 
province  of  worship  and  preaching,  pastoral  care  and  Christian  edu- 
cation, than  it  is  the  province  of  the  social  action  bureaucrats.  Yet  it 
is  a  vital  pre-political  task  with  vast  consequences  for  the  way  in 
which  Christian  people  engage  the  world. 

There  are  patterns  of  dialogue  which  are  the  special  concern  of 
the  international  relations  ministry.  Two  of  these  patterns  are  closely 
related :  closing  the  gap  between  ministerial  and  lay  opinion  leaders 
and  between  religious  professionals  and  government  professionals. 
The  social  action  crowd  has  too  long  been  a  line-up  of  preachers  and 
women  confronting  lay  men  whose  churchmanship  consists  principal- 
ly of  raising  money,  recruiting  members,  and  protecting  their  institu- 
tional investments  in  both  money  and  membership — all  worthy  tasks 
which,  however,  in  isolation  from  the  whole  gospel  foster  a  stifling 
conservatism  incapable  of  true  dialogue  in  a  world  rampant  with 
revolution. 

During  the  late  summer  of  both  1964  and  1965,  it  has  been  my 
privilege  to  cross  the  Atlantic  and  to  share  in  the  life  of  the  Confer- 
ence on  Christian  Approaches  to  Defense  and  Disarmament — ^a  group 
whose  title  may  be  conveniently  if  unfortunately  reduced  to  the  ini- 
tials "CCADD".  This  is  originally  an  Anglo-German  fellowship 
which  invited  American  participants  to  Friedewald  Castle  near  Bonn 
and  to  Ditchley  Park  near  Oxford.  Quite  apart  from  the  rewards  of 
international  conversation,  about  which  we  shall  say  more  presently, 
the  exposure  to  conversation  among  German  churchmen  and  among 
English  churchmen  themselves  was  revealing.  One  of  the  revelations 
was  the  capacity  of  religious  professionals,  on  the  one  hand,  and 
policy-makers  and  military  officers  on  the  other  to  communicate  with 
each  other  as  Christians — and  to  communicate  graciously  at  levels 
of  profound  concern  and  insight.  In  the  case  of  the  Germans,  I  be- 
lieve that  the  dialogical  experience  of  the  lay  academies  in  the  twenty 
years  since  the  "zero  hour"  of  a  shattered  but  renascent  German 
Church  accounts  largely  for  the  capacity  to  communicate.  In  the 
British  case,  it  may  be  more  of  a  reflection  of  the  extent  to  which  that 
tight  little  island  is  a  city-state  centered  in  London  where  church- 
men, scholars,  politicians,  civil  servants,  generals  and  admirals  all 
seem  to  move  in  a  single  orbit  and  can  approach  each  other  familiar- 
ly and  fraternally.  There  is  also  a  conspicuous  absence  in  the  process 
of  British  policy-making  of  that  jungle  of  lobbying  which,   in   the 


118 

United  States,  often  seems  to  force  the  churches  into  a  belligerent 
sectarian  activism  which  aHenates  them  even  from  their  own  con- 
stituents who  happen  to  serve  in  government  or  the  military. 
These  national  comparisons  may  be  overdrawn,  but  I  do  believe  that 
the  Protestant  Churches  of  America  can  learn  from  British  and  Ger- 
man experience  some  of  the  secrets  of  Christian  dialogue  in  mat- 
ters of  foreign  policy,  even  if  we  cannot  reproduce  the  same  religious 
and  political  environments. 

One  of  these  secrets  is  a  capacity  for  restraint  in  religious  pro- 
nouncements upon  political  issues.  Pronouncements  there  must  be, 
especially  when  representative  church  leaders  achieve  a  high  degree 
of  consensus  on  both  the  urgency  of  their  speaking  and  the  content 
of  their  judgment.  It  is  when  the  churches  themselves  are  sharpl} 
divided  that  religious  leaders  should  speak  with  an  extra  measure 
of  restraint.  Abraham  Lincoln's  old  complaint  about  churchmen 
who  claim  equally  to  represent  the  will  of  God  but  whose  prophetic 
voices  proclaim  the  most  opposite  opinions  serves  as  eternal  remin- 
der of  the  moral  burden  of  the  policy-maker.  American  policy-makers 
today  have  good  reason  to  complain  about  the  lack  of  restraint  in 
moral  discussion  of  their  policies  in  Viet  Nam  when  the  churches 
themselves  are  lacking  in  significant  agreement. 

There  are  other  good  reasons  for  restraint  on  occasions  when  the 
urge  rises  to  pronounce  prophetic  judgments,  such  as  understanding 
the  limitations  within  which  any  particular  government  official  must 
work. 

II 

The  Embassy  of  Christ,  second,  must  always  bring  the  dimen- 
sion of  historical  meaning  to  its  dialogue  with  the  world :  God's  his- 
tory, man's  history,  and  the  encounters  between  God  and  man  and 
between  communities  of  men.  It  is  not  really  very  difficult  for  us  to 
state  important  Christian  principles  which  bear  upon  international 
relations.  What  is  terribly  difficult  is  to  perceive  the  embodiment  of 
these  principles  in  the  concrete  historical  life  of  nations  and  gov- 
ernments and  policy-makers.  In  the  human  world  of  the  policy- 
makers, faith  and  its  principles  must  engage  established  policies,  new 
facts,  conflicting  evidence,  competing  claims,  limited  resources,  laws, 
jealousies,  uncertainties,  confusion,  the  necessities  of  compromise, 
pressures  from  above  and  below  and  from  allies  and  enemies,  guilt 
and  pride  concerning  the  past,  hope  and  fear  concerning  the  future — 


119 

and  all  of  these  and  more  in  a  unique  historical  configuration  in 
every  moment  of  choice.  It  is  not  enough  to  have  "ethical  principles" 
which  can  be  "applied"  to  the  problems  of  foreign  policy.  One  must 
put  one's  self,  as  far  as  possible,  on  the  inside  of  the  dilemmas  of 
government  and  work  steadily  to  cultivate  that  indispensable  re- 
source in  all  statesmanship :  wisdom — wisdom  concerning  the  how, 
and  the  when,  and  the  wherewithal  high  principles  may  be  actual- 
ized, incarnated  in  the  living  arena  of  historical  struggle  where  no 
human  victory  is  ever  complete  or  permanent.  Nothing  is  more 
fatuous  on  the  part  of  Christian  moralists  than  a  fervent  preoccupa- 
tion with  "principles"  to  the  disdain  of  the  singular  junctures  which 
are  God's  earthen  vessels  for  the  in-historization  (if  I  may  use  that 
wonderful  word  which  I  once  heard  some  smart  theologian  pro- 
nounce!) of  His  almighty  purposes. 

Ethics  which  does  not  take  history  seriously  is  not  Christian 
ethics.  A  nineteenth-century  German  chaplain,  offended  by  the  politi- 
cal behavior  of  German  statesmen,  once  put  to  Bismarck  this  ques- 
tion: "Don't  you  think  politics  should  be  more  moral?"  To  which 
Bismarck  replied :  "Yes,  but  then  morality  would  have  to  become  more 
political."  The  prevailing  morality  of  American  Protestantism,  as 
it  confronts  the  problems  and  the  challenges  of  foreign  policy,  is 
rather  paltry  in  its  grasp  of  historical  and  political  wisdom — almost  as 
if  Reinhold  Niebuhr  never  lived  or  spoke  or  wrote. 

All  of  this  is  to  say  that  meaningful  dialogue  in  the  realm  of 
foreign  policy  has  to  do  with  real  decisions  in  a  real  world.  One  of 
the  reasons  for  the  lack  of  a  significant  debate  over  the  issues  of 
American  involvement  in  Viet  Nam  is  the  unwillingness  of  many  of 
the  most  impassioned  critics  of  U.  S.  policy  to  focus  upon  decisions, 
to  provide  constructive  and  realistic  alternatives,  to  wrestle  with  the 
"if-then"  questions  which  the  policy-makers  cannot  ignore. 

Unhappily,  the  common  variety  of  moral  education  in  our 
churches,  our  schools,  and  our  homes  does  not  sufficiently  nurture 
the  capacity  to  make  decisions  creatively  and  responsibly.  Moral 
education  still  has  a  fixation  upon  the  authoritarian  mode  of  cram- 
ming "principles"  into  young  minds  and  old  ones,  too,  rather  than 
cultivating  the  resourcefulness  of  free  moral  agents  to  engage  the 
infinite  number  of  factors  which  give  unique  shape  to  each  historical 
moment  of  choice  and  commitment.  Here,  too,  we  may  seem  to  be 
roaming  far  beyond  the  purview  of  the  international  relations  minis- 
try. But  our  work  in  this  specialized  area  is  very  much  affected  by  the 


120 

most  elementary  moral  conditioning  which  our  people  bring  to  us. 
We  in  all  areas  of  social  action  have  a  tremendous  stake  in  the 
program  of  Christian  education,  of  family  life,  of  lay  activities  for 
which  other  instruments  of  the  Church  bear  a  heavier  burden  than 
do  we.  This  is  a  stake  which  we  should  be  willing  to  explore  con- 
tinuously and  to  build  upon  together  in  every  fruitful  way. 

Ill 

A  third  point  I  wish  to  score  is  that  Christian  dialogue  in  inter- 
national relations  must  be  international.  This  seeming  redundancy 
contains  a  judgment  upon  much  of  the  Church's  education  and  ac- 
tion. When  American  churchmen  meet  to  discuss  African  problems, 
they  are  carrying  on  a  monologue,  not  a  dialogue,  unless  Africans 
meet  with  them.  When  a  conference  is  called  on  Southeast  Asia, 
without  Southeast  Asian  leadership,  the  conferees,  although  they 
may  differ  from  each  other  on  fundamental  issues,  are  still  trapped 
by  the  limits  of  monologue.  And  when  Christians  gather  to  talk  about 
the  Communists  of  Eastern  Europe,  Asia,  or  Latin  America,  their 
talk  suffers  the  most  serious  limitations  if  Communists  are  not 
gathered  with  them.  Of  course,  the  presence  of  the  "foreigner"  or 
the  "enemy"  may  impose  its  own  limitations  upon  the  possibilities 
of  open  dialogue.  But  the  Embassy  of  Christ  has  an  overriding  im- 
perative to  persist  in  precisely  the  most  difficult,  the  most  frustrat- 
ing, the  most  exasperating,  the  most  hostility-laden  confrontations 
among  men.  Referring  to  American-Soviet  relationships,  Reuel 
Howe  has  said:  "The  only  hope  for  the  future  rests  in  a  relentless 
effort  to  keep  open  the  lines  of  communication  and  on  an  acceptance 
of  double-talk,  rejection,  and  distortion  as  a  part  of  the  dialogue." 

In  Berlin,  right  at  the  ugly  Wall  itself,  there  is  an  incredibly 
appropriate  symbol  of  what  the  Embassy  of  Christ  must  be  and  do. 
There  is  a  place  in  Bernauer  Strasse  where  the  Wall  slices  through 
the  front  of  a  churchyard.  On  each  side  of  the  churchyard,  the  gun 
positions  of  Communist  guards  are  mounted  high  in  abandoned  tene- 
ments. Several  refugees  have  been  shot  just  there  and  memorial 
wreaths  mark  the  spots  where  they  have  fallen.  The  church  itself 
is  on  the  east  side  in  the  Soviet  Zone,  but  facing  west.  High  above 
the  church  door  and  the  Wall  itself  stands  a  figure  of  the  Christ, 
hand  upraised  in  benediction.  The  church  itself  is  closed.  The  name 
of  the  church  today  is  what  it  has  been  for  generations :  "The  Church 
of  the  Reconciliation." 


121 

Here,  indeed,  is  the  special  work  of  the  Embassy  of  Christ:  it  is 
to  see  the  face  of  Qirist  on  the  other  side  of  every  wall  of  hostility.  It 
is  to  keep  reminding  us  that  no  nation,  no  people,  no  man  is  an  ab- 
solute enemy.  History  keeps  scrambling  our  "allies"  and  our  "en- 
emies". Blame  and  guilt  for  violence  and  for  revolution  are  most 
ambiguously  distributed  among  the  nations.  Any  war  is  a  civil  war 
within  the  human  family.  There  are  redemptive  forces  at  work  in  any 
community  of  God's  creatures  and  there  are  bonds  of  common  inter- 
est among  all  communities.  The  Embassy  of  Christ  must  never  tire 
in  searching  out  those  redemptive  forces  on  the  other  side  of  the  wall 
and  those  bonds  of  common  interest. 

If  I  may  speak  more  personally,  I  have  long  preferred  to  imag- 
ine myself  to  be  a  "political  realist"  with  considerable  degree  of 
skepticism  about  the  prospects  of  soothing  the  hostilities  of  either 
Russia  or  China.  I  have  been  troubled  by  what  I  know,  second-hand, 
of  some  of  the  East-West  encounters  fostered  by  churchmen  in  which 
it  has  seemed  that  many  of  the  Western  participants  express  a  naive 
view  of  world  politics  and  are  distressingly  eager  to  join  Eastern 
denunciations  of  American  policy.  But  I  have  come  increasingly  to 
believe  in  the  essentiality  of  Christian  participation  in  such  conver- 
sations, not  because  I  have  inflated  hopes  concerning  their  immediate 
influence,  but  because  I  have  a  deepening  conviction  that  there  are 
profound  theological  and  ethical  imperatives  involved  in  them  which, 
in  this  historical  stretch,  cannot  be  evaded  and  which  may  yield 
long-term  fruits.  The  risks  are  great,  of  course,  not  simply  to  the 
participants  but  also  to  the  reputation  and  support  of  the  Church  in 
a  society  where  McCarthyism  has  enjoyed  such  a  widespread  res- 
urrection. But  a  Church  which  cannot  accept  grave  risks  cannot  be 
saved  by  a  reputation  for  playing  it  safe.  And  those  of  us  who  take 
a  fatuous  kind  of  pride  in  considering  ourselves  to  be  "realists"  be- 
cause we  are  non-pacifists  would  do  well  not  to  abandon  the  works  of 
reconciliation  to  the  pacifists  to  bear  alone. 

If  international  conversation  is  imperative  across  the  walls  of 
hostility  between  enemies  and  across  the  vast  cultural  chasms  be- 
tween American  Protestantism  and  the  Third  World,  it  should  never 
be  taken  for  granted  as  existing  satisfactorily  among  so-called  "al- 
lies." One  of  the  great  values  of  the  conferences  at  Friedewald  and 
at  Ditchley  has  been  the  discovery  of  significant  dififerences  in  prior- 
ities between  American  and  European  delegates.  The  haunting  mem- 
ories of  Nazism  and  of  war,  the  continuing  despair  over  a  divided 


122 

nation,  and  the  fear  of  a  resurgent  rightist  fanaticism  play  upon 
German  churchmen  in  ways  which  deserve  the  most  careful  study 
and  constant  respect  from  outsiders.  In  Britain,  the  adjustment  to 
the  loss  of  empire  and  wealth,  the  vulnerability  to  nuclear  attack,  and 
the  ambivalent  yearning  for  a  radical  new  involvement  in  Conti- 
nental affairs,  largely  frustrated  by  the  French,  inevitably  touch  all 
discussions  of  foreign  policy  by  English  Christians.  But  one  does  not 
have  to  cross  the  ocean  in  search  of  a  conversation  with  allies :  it 
would  be  most  helpful  for  the  American  churches  to  multiply  many 
times  their  conversation  with  the  Canadian  churches  in  international 
matters.  As  close  as  our  cultural  and  economic  ties  may  be,  Canadian 
Christians  tend  toward  distinctive  views  in  Asian  and  Latin  Ameri- 
can policy  which  we  would  do  well  to  hear  continually. 

Herbert  Butterfield  has  said:  "What  society  needs  is  every  pos- 
sible variation  and  extension  of  the  art  of  putting  oneself — and  ac- 
tually 'feeling  oneself — in  the  other  person's  place."  This  art,  which 
has  always  been  of  cardinal  importance  to  the  profession  of  diplomacy, 
has  in  our  time  become  a  necessity  for  all  those  segments  of  the  gen- 
eral public  which  aspire  to  responsible  leadership  and  influence  in 
foreign  policy.  It  is  not  enough  for  the  churches  to  match  technical 
knowledge  with  ethical  theory  in  their  international  affairs  minis- 
try: they  must  bring  American  churchmen  into  increasing  contact 
with  their  counterparts  in  other  countries.  The  process  of  exposure 
must  get  out  beyond  the  church  bureaucrats  to  the  hundreds  if  not 
thousands  of  laymen  who  are  or  must  be  enlisted  in  this  ministry.  It  is 
a  process  which  can  make  use  of  the  expanding  company  of  foreign 
nationals  at  work  in  the  States,  but  it  should  also  bring  representa- 
tives directly  from  other  national  churches  for  extended  visitations 
and  it  should  magnify  the  opportunities  for  travel-seminars  and  short- 
term  work  and  study  projects  abroad.  Of  course,  such  programming 
costs  money,  but  just  as  the  churches  must  not  shy  away  from  the 
fires  of  controversy,  so  they  must  not  shrink  from  the  costs  of  doing- 
what  their  mission  as  the  Embassy  of  Christ  compels  them  to  under- 
take for  the  sake  of  its  conversation  with  the  entire  world. 

IV 

The  churches  have  their  own  distinctive  intelligence  function  to 
perform  in  international  relations.  They  cannot  hope  to  match  the 
government  in  gathering  daily  the  (|uantities  of  data  and  especially 
of  crisis  information  which  are  absorbed  by  the  various  intelligence 
services.    The  point  to  be  made,  however,  is  not  that  the  churches 


123 

are  inferior  in  their  intelligence  function ;  it  is  that  they  have  a 
unique  capacity  for  certain  kinds  of  intelligence  operations  which 
government  itself  lacks  the  resources  to  perform.  It  is  to  mobilize 
their  own  best  resources  for  a  continviing  conversation  concerning  the 
ethical  dimensions  of  foreign  policy.  It  is  to  perceive  and  interpret 
the  historical  influence  of  religious  institutions  and  values  upon 
political  life.  With  increasing  candor,  American  policy-makers  have 
confessed  that  there  is  a  great  void  beyond  the  limits  of  secular  intel- 
ligence, beyond  the  competence  of  technical  expertise,  beyond  the 
range  of  the  awesome  computers.  The  Cuban  missile  crisis  of  1962 
marked  a  critical  turning  point  in  this  regard.  It  was  the  earth- 
shattering  qualities  of  modern  weapons  which  set  the  stage  for  the 
crisis,  with  highly  sophisticated  aerial  photography  providing  the 
documentation  and  with  mathematical  games  upon  the  computers 
programming  the  various  contingencies.  Yet  the  crucial  determina- 
tions amounted  to  a  kind  of  leap  of  faith :  they  had  to  do  with 
the  nature  of  the  American  purpose  and  character  and  with  the 
ways  in  which  the  enemy  himself  might  be  permitted  to  share  in  a 
solution  which  would  not  destroy  his  most  vital  interests.  John  Ben- 
nett observed  some  months  later  that  our  statesmen  had  displayed  a 
moral  sensitivity  far  beyond  the  capacity  of  the  general  public. 

How  can  the  churches  tool  up  for  the  augmenting  of  moral 
intelligence  among  their  constituents  and  within  the  government? 
They  cannot  do  so  in  isolation  from  secular  intelligence.  Church  lead- 
ership must  grow  in  its  ability  to  assimilate  the  best  information 
available  from  governments,  from  the  United  Nations,  and  from 
private  sources  such  as  the  press,  citizen  organizations,  and  the 
universities.  Lord  Chalfont,  the  British  Minister  for  Disarmament, 
who  came  over  from  Geneva  to  last  month's  conference  at  Ditchley, 
remarked  that  in  the  closely  related  realms  of  defense  and  disarma- 
ment there  had  been  a  sharp  escalation  of  intellectual  demands,  add- 
ing that  Christian  scholarship  must  respond  with  its  own  escalation  if 
it  would  remain  relevant  to  the  issues  of  world  affairs  as  they  take 
on  new  form  and  shape.  One  could  not,  for  instance,  pursue  dis- 
armament negotiations  in  Geneva  leading  to  a  non-proliferation 
treaty  on  nuclear  weapons  simply  in  the  context  of  a  common  in- 
terest between  the  Anglo-American  Allies  and  the  Soviet  Union.  The 
whole  strategic  structure  of  Western  Europe,  including  especially 
the  participation  of  West  Germany  in  either  a  multilateral  force  or 
an  Atlantic  nuclear  force,  must  be  brought  under  review,  not  to  men- 


124 

tion  Red  China's  exclusion  from  the  UN,  or  the  mounting  pressures 
in  India  to  develop  nuclear  weapons  in  the  face  of  conflicts  with  both 
Pakistan  and  China,  nor  the  temptations  to  a  besieged  Israel  to  hold 
its  Arab  antagonists  at  bay  through  nuclear  deterrence.  The  churches 
have  repeatedly  sanctioned  disarmament  negotiations,  but  they  are 
not  likely  to  contribute  to  wise  disarmament  policy  if  they  cannot 
keep  up  with  the  policy  contexts  within  which  progress  toward 
disarmament  may  be  realized.  In  a  world  of  kaleidoscopic  changes, 
the  churches  cannot  simply  live  ofif  the  moral  formulations  of  the 
past. 

The  churches  have  more  to  learn  from  their  own  worldwide  net- 
work of  communications  than  they  have  yet  come  to  appreciate.  To 
the  extent  that  their  own  sources  of  information  help  to  free  them 
from  absolute  dependence  upon  official  and  secular  sources,  their 
intelligence  operations  will  acquire  increasing  moral  integrity.  The 
churches  possess  an  enormous  investment  in  seminaries,  colleges, 
and  universities  which,  by  means  of  curricula,  research,  and  special 
projects,  can  better  coordinate  the  inquiry  into  the  relevance  of  theo- 
logical discourse  to  policy  problems.  Denominational  and  ecumenical 
staffs  are  challenged  to  play  a  catalytic  role  in  refining  this  invest- 
ment. I  have  recently  proposed  a  research  consultation  in  ethics  and 
foreign  policy  which  might  give  birth  to  a  more  sustained  and  coordi- 
nated intellectual  effort  in  this  realm.  I  know  that  many  persons  lx)th 
in  and  outside  of  the  churches  remain  to  be  persuaded  that  the 
dialogue  between  ethics  and  foreign  policy  is  intellectually  necessary 
or  promising.  At  one  side  are  those  who  are  concerned  with  arous- 
ing moral  passion  but  not  with  scholarly  progress ;  at  the  other  are 
those  for  whom  ethical  inquiry  is  not  accorded  a  status  worthy  of 
any  scholarly  attention.  There  is  thus  an  vmwitting  conspiracy  be- 
tween battalions  of  moralists  within  the  Church  and  legions  of 
positivists  within  the  social  sciences.  I  like  to  think  that,  although 
I  thoroughly  enjoyed  my  years  of  college  teaching,  I  now  have  more 
incentives  than  ever  to  be  a  competent  political  scientist  in  the  service 
of  the  Qiurch. 

V 

Finally,  the  Church's  conversation  with  the  world  is  more  than  a 
matter  of  dialogical  or  intellectual  skills.  It  is  made  truly  earnest  only 
insofar  as  the  Embassy  of  Christ  is  faithful  to  two  closely  related 
imperatives.  I  refer  to  the  acts  of  sacrifice  and  reconciliation  within 
the  Church  itself. 


125 

Seven  decades  ago,  George  Herron,  one  of  the  early  Jeremiahs 
of  the  Social  Gospel,  proclaimed  that  the  need  of  the  hour  was  the 
assertion  of  the  Cross  as  the  eternal  principle  of  all  divine  and  all 
human  action.  The  driving  forces  of  the  universe  itself,  he  said,  are 
sacrificial  and  redemptive.  "Christianity  is  the  realization  of  the 
universal  sacrifice,  of  the  philanthropy  of  God,  of  the  redemptive 
righteousness  of  Christ,  in  society.  .  .  .  The  fulfillment  of  Christianity 
will  be  the  mutual  sacrifice  of  God  and  his  world  in  the  society  of 
a  common  need."  Herron  was  preoccupied  with  the  domestic  issues 
of  economic  justice.  But  surely  the  principle  of  sacrifice  which  was 
the  central  theme  in  his  evangel  has  something  to  do  with  regard 
to  the  international  issues  of  economic  justice.  If  we  cannot  push  our 
government  too  far  in  the  direction  of  sacrifice,  as  some  economists 
like  to  warn  us,  the  churches  can  at  least  do  everything  possible  to 
free  our  government  from  the  most  narrow  conceptions  of  "the 
national  interest"  in  such  matters  as  economic  assistance,  foreign 
exchange,  tariffs,  commodity  agreements,  and  the  like.  But  the  more 
compelling  application  of  the  principle  of  sacrifice  has  to  do  with  how 
far  the  churches  and  individual  Christians  themselves  are  willing  to  go 
in  committing  their  own  treasure,  even  to  the  point  of  privation  and 
suffering  freely  endured  for  the  sake  of  the  disinherited  among  the 
remotest  of  God's  children.  The  present  levels  of  international  phi- 
lanthropy by  American  Christians,  while  generous  by  some  measures, 
fail  to  satisfy  St.  Paul's  appeal  to  "make  our  bodies  a  living  sacrifice, 
holy  and  acceptable  to  God". 

The  Embassy  of  Christ  cannot  address  its  ministry  of  reconcilia- 
tion to  the  nations  without  practicing  that  same  ministry  within 
and  among  religious  communities.  The  historical  power  of  concrete 
acts  of  reconciliation  has  been  wondrously  demonstrated  by  Pope 
John  XXIII.  As  a  newcomer  to  the  Church  Center  for  the  United 
Nations,  I  have  mused  as  to  why  that  imposing  facility  was  not 
established  as  an  interfaith  center.  If  there  is  one  single  place  in  the 
world  where  universalist  religions  should  be  able  to  engage  in  at 
least  some  common  ministry,  it  is  across  the  Plaza  from  the  United 
Nations.  But  now  we  have  a  Protestant  Center,  three  blocks  up  the 
street  is  the  Catholic  Center,  and  a  new  Jewish  Center  is  building  at 
some  distance.  It  was  all  made  strikingly  clear  on  dedication  day  at  the 
Church  Center  in  the  imperial  language  of  one  speaker  who  enthused 
about  "this  Christian  center,  this  outpost  of  Christian  influence, 
this  citadel  of  Christian  witness" — and  then  the  guest  speaker  was 


126 

introduced :  Muhammad  Zafrullah  Khan,  then  President  of  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly. 

The  late  Dag  Hammarskjold  seldom  made  public  reference  to  his 
religious  faith,  although  his  Markings  now  testify  posthumously  to 
the  richness  of  his  spiritual  life.  Nevertheless  it  was  my  privilege 
to  hear  Hammarksjold  address  the  1954  Assembly  of  the  World 
Council  of  Churches  at  Evanston,  when  he  spoke  freely  as  a  Chris- 
tian man.  There  are  passages  in  that  address  which,  to  my  mind,  are 
unsurpassed  in  their  theological  and  historical  insight  into  inter- 
national politics,  and  I  wish  to  conclude  with  several  of  them : 

Let  us  not  get  caught  in  the  belief  that  divisions  of  our  world  between 
the  righteous  and  the  wrong-doers,  between  idealism  and  materialism, 
between  freedom  and  slavery,  coincide  with  national  boundaries.  The 
righteous  are  to  be  found  everywhere — as   are  the  wrong-doers. . . . 

The  conflicts  behind  the  surface  of  international — and  for  that  matter 
also  of  national — politics,  are  conflicts  whose  battlefield  always  has 
been,  is  and  always  will  be  the  hearts  of  men.  In  a  certain  area,  in 
a  certain  period,  those  in  power  may  predominantly  represent  one  or 
the  other  tendency.  But  we  would  lack  in  historical  sense  and  psy- 
chological insight,  if  the  experience  we  have  gathered  during  our  short 
span  of  time  would  lead  us  to  believe  that  this  or  that  people  is  to  be 
considered  as  an  enemy  forever  of  our  ideals,  or  if  we  were  to  believe 
that  ideals  which  we  feel  should  dominate  our  own  society,  will  sur- 
vive without  an  honest  and  continued  fight  for  their  supremacy  in  our 
own  public  life. . . . 

For  the  Christian  faith  'the  Cross  is  that  place  at  the  center  of  the 
world's  history . . .  where  all  men  and  all  nations  without  exception 
stand  revealed  as  enemies  of  God . . .  and  yet  where  all  men  stand 
revealed  as  beloved  of  God,  precious  in  God's  sight.'  So  understood, 
the  Cross,  although  it  is  the  unique  fact  on  which  the  Christian 
Churches  should  base  their  hope,  should  not  separate  those  of  Chris- 
tian faith  from  others,  but  should  instead  be  that  element  in  their  lives 
which  enables  them  to  stretch  out  their  hands  to  peoples  of  other  creeds 
in  the  feeling  of  universal  brotherhood  which  we  hope  one  day  to  see 
reflected  in  a  world  of  nations  truly  united. 


The  Minister  as  the 
Man-in-Between 

George  A.  Foster,  '33 

Pastor,  Trinity  Methodist  Church,  Tallahassee,  Florida 

Although  the  title,  very  well  sets  the  theme  for  this  Alumni 
lecture,  I  would  like  to  suggest  also  a  subtitle,  "A  Contribution 
Toward  Personal  and  Vocational  Identity  in  the  Ministry." 

One  of  the  oldest  and  most  frequently  given  bits  of  moral  advice, 
going  back  at  least  as  far  as  Socrates  and  the  Old  Testament,  is  the 
simple  injunction,  "Know  thyself."  I  have  recently  been  engaged 
in  a  long  delayed  reading  of  that  devotional  classic,  Theologia  Ger- 
nianica.  In  one  of  its  sections  I  was  delighted  to  read  the  other  day 
this  sentence,  "And  a  voice  came  from  heaven  saying,  *0  man, 
know  thyself.'  "  Recently  I  have  been  picking  up  a  few  books  in  the 
fields  of  psychology  and  sociology,  perusing  some  and  reading  others, 
and  have  become  quite  interested  in  the  concern  which  experts  in 
these  fields  have  for  personal  identity  in  our  current  culture.  While 
their  approach  is  somewhat  different,  certainly  more  analytical, 
than  that  of  the  old  philosophers  and  mystics,  the  concern  is  essen- 
tially the  same. 

I  am  assuming  that  there  are  two  kinds,  or  levels,  of  identity 
with  which  we  must  interest  ourselves  in  the  spiritual  quest  of  know- 
ing ourselves.  The  first  is  personal,  which  I  shall  designate  as 
primary  identity.  The  second  is  multiple  and  includes  such  basic 
indentifications  as  that  of  the  vocational  and  marital  roles.  We  are 
concerned  now  with  only  one  secondary  identity,  the  vocational, 
which  is  for  us  the  ministerial. 

7.  The  Importance  of  Finding  Identity  or  Knowing  Who  You  Are. 
I  find  myself  in  deep  agreement  with  the  ancient  injunction, 
"Know  thyself,"  and  am  keenly  interested  in  the  present  approach 
which  modern  students  of  human  nature  and  culture  are  making  in 
seeking  meaning  in  identity.  It  is  perhaps  easier  for  us  to  understand 
how  important  it  is  for  other  human  beings  to  know  who  we  are, 
and  to  have  an  image  of  us  which  is  clear  and  fair.  Most  of  us  here 

The  Alumni  Lecture  delivered  at  Convocation,  November  2,  1965. 


128 

have  at  some  time  or  other  been  wrongly  identified,  and  have 
doubtless  sometimes  suffered  some  embarrassment  or  some  con- 
fusion because  of  it.  I  recall  several  rather  humorous  episodes  of 
wrong  identification  which  remain  with  me  primarily  as  conversa- 
tion pieces,  but  are  still  illustrative  of  what  I  am  trying  to  say.  I 
am  one  of  those  old-fashioned  preachers  who  gets  out  in  the  after- 
noon and  rings  a  few  doorbells.  I  confess  with  you  that  sometimes 
I  do  not  punch  the  bell  quite  so  firmly  the  second  time  and  am 
thankful  for  those  blessed  little  cards  which  we  leave  at  people's 
doors.  On  one  occasion  the  door  was  opened  by  a  very  friendly  lady 
who  showed  all  signs  of  recognizing  me,  her  new  minister.  But  she 
did  not  follow  this  recognition  with  an  invitation  to  come  in.  I  gave 
a  slight  tug  on  the  screen  door  latch  but  found  it  fastened.  We  stood 
and  made  small  talk  through  the  screen  door  for  a  short  while,  until 
there  came  a  slight  awkward  lull  in  our  conversation.  This  she  broke 
with  the  announcement,  "I  don't  believe  I  need  anything  in  your 
line  today."  I  knew  then  that  there  must  be  a  short  circuit  some- 
where, so  I  asked,  "Lady,  who  do  you  think  I  am?"  She  instantly 
replied,  "Why  I  would  know  you  anywhere  in  the  world,  you  are 
my  Fuller  Brush  man."  In  another  similar  setting  soon  after  I  had 
rung  the  doorbell  a  young  mother  holding  a  baby  opened  the  door 
with  obvious  anticipation,  but  as  soon  as  she  recognized  me  spoke 
in  considerable  disappointment,  "Oh,  I  thought  you  were  the  Di-dee 
man."  Obviously  I  did  not  complete  my  pastoral  call  in  this  situa- 
tion, but  went  away  mumbling  to  myself  about  my  adult  nursery, 
generally  known  as  the  First  Methodist  Church. 

I  think  that  this  importance  of  having  other  people  know  who 
we  are  is  more  strongly  pointed  up  in  the  realization  that  we  project 
certain  images  of  ourselves  and  seek  to  live  into  those  images  as  the 
basic  goals  of  our  lives.  Most  of  us  here  have  discovered  also  that 
we  sometimes  are  required  to  live  into  images  which  others  have 
of  us  which  do  not  correspond  exactly  to  the  images  which  we 
project  of  ourselves.  Here  is  an  illustration  out  of  my  own  expe- 
rience in  the  ministry.  I  once  served  as  a  pastor  of  a  churcli  which 
was  in  a  rapidly  growing  community.  We  undertook  a  major  church 
extension  work  and  were  able  to  sponsor  five  new  Methodist 
churches  in  our  county.  This  caused  the  Bishop  and  the  District 
Superintendents,  who  make  the  appointments  and  in  whose  images 
of  us  we  are  perforce  required  to  live,  to  think  of  me  as  a  very 
good  administrator.  Yes,  you  have  anticipated  it.  I  was  made  a  Dis- 
trict Superintendent !    I  had  never  imaged  myself  in  this  role,  and  it 


129 

was  a  departure  from  my  line  of  career  projection.  Fortunately,  the 
Bishop  got  me  back  into  focus  and  let  me  off  for  good  behavior 
after  two  years. 

As  important  as  it  is  to  have  other  people  have  a  clear  image 
of  us,  it  is  a  thousand  times  more  important  for  us  to  know  ourselves 
who  we  are.  I  believe  from  reading  some  of  the  current  studies  of 
our  contemporary  culture  that  many  of  its  perceptive  analysts  would 
agree  that  the  greatest  affliction  from  which  we  are  suffering  now 
is  that  so  many  people  simply  do  not  know  who  they  are.  The  word 
which  is  used  to  describe  this  condition  is  alienation ;  the  condition 
varies  in  degree  from  a  simple  poor  identity  of  oneself  to  a  patho- 
logical nonacceptance,  or  even  rejection  and  hatred  of  oneself.  Many 
explanations  have  been  given  for  the  riots  by  Negro  people  in  Los 
Angeles  several  months  ago.  The  most  perceptive  which  I  heard 
was  given  by  Martin  Luther  King  in  a  televised  interview.  He 
pointed  out  that  the  young  Negro  people  who  were  involved  in  this 
riot  were  suffering  from  a  radical  alienation.  This  alienation  came 
out  in  their  declared  hatred  of  the  white  man  simply  for  his  white- 
ness. But  behind  that  was  a  hatred  of  themselves  and  of  their  own 
blackness.   This  is  radical  alienation. 

At  the  general  and  more  obvious  levels  of  our  vocation  as  minis- 
ters, we  are  not  usually  conscious  of  this  kind  of  alienation.  Gen- 
erally the  distortion  of  our  own  self  image  runs  the  other  way  and 
has  at  its  center  a  premature  self-acceptance  and  even  inflated  self- 
evaluation  You  will  forgive  me  if  I  confess  for  myself  and  for  our 
profession  that  we  are  especially  prone  to  this.  I  was  told  in  my 
first  year  in  the  ministry  by  an  older  neighboring  pastor  that  I  had  a 
good  future.  I  believed  this  and  went  on  the  strength  of  that  meat 
for  several  difficult  conference  years.  Under  an  ego  drive  impelled 
by  this  good  image  of  myself,  I  once  dared  to  ask  the  Bishop  and 
District  Superintendent,  "When  does  my  future  begin?"  There  is  a 
story  in  Bishop  Edwin  Holt  Hughes'  book,  /  Was  Made  a  Minister, 
which  illustrates  and  counters  this  tendency  on  our  part.  One  of  his 
preachers  came  to  him  to  seek  advancement  in  his  appointment. 
In  seeking  to  further  improve  the  Bishop's  image  of  him,  he  said, 
"Bishop,  you  know  that  there  are  many  people  who  consider  me 
among  the  ten  outstanding  preachers  of  Methodism."  The  Bishop's 
reply,  quick  and  devastating,  was,  "Yes,  who  are  the  other  eight?" 

I  discovered  during  my  brief  tenure  as  District  Superintendent 
that  many  of  the  brethren  suffer  from  inflated  self-image.  I  also 
learned  that  frequently  these  images  are  uxorially  aided  and  abetted. 


130 

If  a  brother  has  a  tendency  toward  this  sort  of  over-evaluation  of 
himself,  plus  a  wife  who  pumps  more  pressure  into  the  balloon,  he 
can  run  into  real  difficulty  in  the  appointment  system,  and  some- 
times suffer  a  real  kickback  in  his  own  mental  and  spiritual  state. 
Fortunate  indeed  is  the  man  who  has  a  wife  who  serves  as  a  brake 
and  a  deflater  in  this  respect.  I  am  myself  one  of  those  fortunate 
preachers  married  to  such  a  wife.  When  I  was  given  my  honorary 
Doctor  of  Divinity  degree  I  at  last  had  it  made!  Proudly  I  donned 
the  Doctor's  hood,  resplendent  in  its  red,  black  and  white  colors, 
and  processed  proudly  down  the  aisle  as  we  approached  the  Lord 
in  supposed  humility.  Later  I  asked  my  wife,  "Honey,  how  did  I 
look  wearing  my  new  hood  ?"  Her  reply  was  a  salutary  and  quick 
slaughtering  of  my  clerical  pride:  "I  thought  you  looked  like  a 
woodpecker."  On  another  occasion  after  she  had  ridden  the  district 
with  me  for  several  Sundays  and  heard  the  same  sermon  over  and 
over  again,  she  quietly  suggested,  "Don't  you  think  you  ought  to  get 
yourself  up  another  sermon ;  you  have  preached  that  one  so  many 
times  it  can  walk  alone." 

There  are  few  of  us  who  do  not  suffer  at  some  time  or  other 
in  our  lives  experiences  which  drive  us  to  a  re-evaluation  of  our- 
selves. These  usually  occur  at  the  level  of  our  secondary  identities, 
especially  that  of  vocation,  personal  ambition,  and  career  fulfillment. 
Frequently  these  are  quite  traumatic  and  kick  back  upon  us  even 
to  the  level  of  primary  identity.  If  at  this  primary  level  we  have 
achieved  what  is  called  an  authentic  selfhood  and  have  not  invested 
the  basic  stuff  of  our  personal  being  in  secondary  identities,  we 
shall  be  able  to  withstand  the  shocking  experience  and  may  even 
emerge  from  it  with  more  courage  to  be,  and  more  established  in 
our  primary  identity.  Some  of  us,  unfortunately,  become  exceedingly 
defensive,  especially  where  a  rejection  at  a  secondary  level  threatens 
to  reveal  what  we  really  are  at  primary  level.  Most  of  us  are  skilled 
in  this  kind  of  defensiveness,  the  primary  tactic  of  which  is  to  cry 
out  against  the  unfairness  of  others  in  failing  to  recognize  our  true 
worth. 

I  realize  that  I  am  being  strongly  presumptuous  at  this  point  and 
am  treading  on  tender  territory,  and  could  be  moving  in  where 
angels  fear  to  tread.  But  we  are  here  together  as  ministers  of  the 
Gospel  and  it  is  good  for  us  to  take  an  honest  look  at  ourselves. 
I  was  recently  called  a  Preacher's  Preacher.  Having  heard  a  prom- 
inent lawyer  called  a  Lawyer's  Lawyer,  and  a  successful  Doctor 
called  a  Doctor's  Doctor,  I  took  this  as  a  great  compliment.    Later 


131 

on  I  read  of  a  cannibal  who  was  a  Cannibal's  Cannibal.  As  I  stay 
for  a  while  in  this  holy  ground  where  all  of  us  live,  I  hope  you  will 
think  of  me  as  a  Preacher's  Preacher  discussing  common  concerns 
in  a  brotherly  manner,  but  if  you  must,  you  may  think  of  me  as  a 
Cannibal's  Cannibal  daring  to  chew  you  up  a  bit. 

I  believe  that  I  can  enforce  the  distinction  between  our  personal 
and  vocational  identity  or  between  the  primary  and  secondary  levels 
of  self  realization  by  a  play  on  two  words  which  etymologically  are 
the  same  word  but  for  our  purposes  now  may  be  sharply  distin- 
guished. The  one  is  person  and  the  other  is  parson.  You  already 
understand  that  by  person  I  mean  our  primary  identity  in  authentic 
selfhood,  and  by  parson  our  secondary  identity  in  vocational  role.  It 
seems  to  be  a  common  phenomenon  that  human  beings  who  have  a 
weakness  in  primary  identity  either  consciously  or  unconsciously 
seek  and  even  strive  for  self  realization  at  the  level  of  secondary 
identities.  We  ministers  share  this  common  human  pattern  and 
procedure  whereby  we  enter  roles  which  yield  status  and  recognition 
and  become  substitutes  for  deeper  self  realization.  Indeed  it  is  pos- 
sible that  a  man  pours  all  of  himself  into  a  secondary  role  and  has 
nothing  left  over  for  his  soul-self.  I  recall  that  as  soon  as  I  received 
my  first  local  preacher's  license  as  a  sophomore  in  college,  one  of 
the  first  things  I  did  was  to  buy  myself  a  black  suit.  I  really  wasn't 
anybody  much  as  a  person,  so  I  wanted  all  the  more  to  be  parson. 
In  my  more  mature  years  I  am  greatly  concerned  about  men  in  our 
vocation,  especially  younger  men,  who  seem  to  reach  out  eagerly 
for  the  clerical  identification.  Without  intending  to  disparage  the 
round  collar,  may  I  suggest  that  it  is  frequently  used  for  this  very 
purpose;  and  do  we  not  sometimes  wear  the  stole  for  the  ornamenta- 
tion of  the  parson  rather  than  to  represent  servitude  of  the  person 
to  the  Lxjrd  ?  I  have  already  observed  that  this  whole  pattern  of  striv- 
ing  for   status   is    shared   by    us   with    human    beings    in    general. 

I  am  so  convinced  of  the  importance  of  this  identification  as 
person  that  I  think  it  must  not  be  lost  even  in  the  role  of  husband 
or  wife.  I  observe  that  there  are  some  women  who  marry  preachers 
and  enter  into  the  role  of  preacher's  wife  with  might  and  main.  Some 
submerge  their  personhood  in  this  secondary  identity  and 
some  submerge  the  husband  as  they  seek  their  identity  in  this  role 
which  some  women  seem  to  covet.  I  learned  early  in  my  own  mar- 
riage that  my  wife  was  desperately  determined  to  be  herself  first 
and  a  preacher's  wife  second.  By  a  spiritual  and  psychological 
principle  which  seems  always  to  work,  she  is  a  far  better  wife,  and 


132 

even    preacher's    wife,    because    she    has    struggled    and    succeeded 
in  the  realization  of  authentic  selfhood. 

As  we  come  to  our  own  relationship  with  God  as  His  ministers 
we  are  first  persons,  human  beings,  men — created  in  the  image  of 
God  and  redeemed  by  His  grace  in  Jesus  Christ.  Here  we  find 
who  we  are  and  from  this  identity  of  person  we  move  into  the  role 
of  parson,  persons  called  into  the  work  of  the  ministry.  If  we  come 
to  the  role  of  parson  in  weakness  as  person,  we  are  always  in  danger 
of  the  stereotype,  and  possibly  even  of  the  phony.  More  conscious 
of  being  parson  than  of  being  person,  we  move  among  our  people 
with  calculated  manner,  posing,  image-protecting,  and,  to  use  a 
phrase  already  used  today  on  this  platform,  in  danger  of  becoming 
"paid  professional  religious  men."  Any  sort  of  stuffed  shirt  is  obnox- 
ious, but  the  worst  of  all  is  that  of  the  parson  who  has  failed  to  be- 
come person. 

II.  The  Minister  as  the  Man-in-Between  His  People  and  Time. 

All  of  us  who  have  served  in  the  pastorate  in  various  situations 
know  that  even  in  these  challenging  and  rapidly  moving  times  many 
of  our  people  are  still  living  in  a  provincialism  of  space  and  of  time. 
It  is  also  apparent  to  us  that  much  of  this  is  willed  provincialism. 
There  is  widespread  reluctance  to  revolution  among  our  people. 
In  some  instances  this  is  doubtless  due  to  ignorance.  Possibly  a 
greater  cause  is  disturbance  and  fear  at  the  threat  of  radical  changes 
in  their  "way  of  life."  Some  will  go  so  far  as  to  deny  that  there  is 
a  revolution  at  all  and  to  label  as  leftists  or  Communists  even  those 
who  recognize  that  world  revolutions  are  going  on.  Many  of  these 
people  are  supporting  their  positions  by  religious  and  patriotic  sanc- 
tions, and  if  they  could  stop  all  kinds  of  social  and  political  changes, 
and  even  undo  some  of  the  developments  of  recent  years,  they  would 
rejoice  to  do  so.  They  are  what  Teilhard  de  Chardin  calls  the  "im- 
mobilists."  Many  of  us  have  heard  the  statement  that  the  worst  thing 
in  the  world  is  ignorance.  You  have  also  heard  someone  say  that  the 
worst  thing  in  the  world  is  really  the  ignorance  of  ignorance.  I  have 
a  third  observation  in  this  line  which  is  that  the  worst  thing  in  the 
world  is  a  human  being  who  has  reached  out  for  a  religious  and/or 
patriotic  sanction  for  the  conclusions  he  has  reached  out  of  the 
ignorance  of  which  he  is  ignorant. 

Granted  the  reality  of  his  identity  as  person  and  the  genuineness 
of  his  commitment  as  parson,  the  minister  of  our  day  finds  himself 
between  his  people  and  time.  Since  they  are  living  in  a  provincialism 


133 

of  time  as  well  as  space,  one  of  his  primary  responsibilities  as  a 
teacher  of  the  truth  is  to  lead  them  into  a  larger  historical  setting 
for  their  lives.  We  are  very  fortunate  that  we  have  a  Biblical  struc- 
ture for  doing  this.  There  is  a  philosophy  of  history  set  up  in  the 
Biblical  story  which  readily  provides  a  structure  for  our  giving  peo- 
ple a  sense  of  being  involved  in  a  long  historical  process.  We  can 
remind  them  that  we  serve  the  God  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob, 
that  the  drama  of  divine  redemption  has  its  primary  essentials  in 
certain  times  and  places,  and  that  we  are  today  the  heirs  of  cen- 
turies of  Judaeo-Christian  life,  experience  and  discovery.  When 
they  ask  us  to  "give  them  the  Bible,"  they  have  opened  the  door  to 
a  wonderful  opportunity  for  us.  A  radical  use  of  its  basic  historical 
spread  will  help  the  preacher  to  lead  them  out  of  their  obscurantist 
discontinuity,  and  to  teach  them  that  "old-fashioned  religion"  is 
much  older  really  than  nineteenth-century  revivalism.  I  have  dis- 
covered that  even  some  of  our  well-educated  and  quite  self-conscious 
sophisticated  people  suffer  from  historical  discontinuity  at  this  point. 
Along  with  their  less-informed  neighbors  they  need  to  be  reminded 
that  wisdom  did  not  begin  with  our  century.  Here  is  a  place  for  the 
minister  to  stand  between  his  people  and  time  past  and  remind  them 
over  and  over  again  that  they  are  set  down  in  a  great  sweep  of  his- 
tory. 

It  is  not  difficult  for  us  to  understand  the  anxieties  of  people  con- 
cerning the  swiftly  moving  world  in  which  we  live.  There  is  no 
other  ready  word  to  describe  what  is  going  on  all  across  the  earth 
than  the  word  revolutionary.  Barbara  Ward  says  in  her  book,  The 
Rich  Nations  and  the  Poor  Nations,  that  there  are  ten  or  twenty 
revolutions  now  going  on  and  that  they  are  intertwined.  In  addi- 
tion to  our  normal  human  resistance  to  change,  people  are  disturbed 
about  some  of  the  directions  in  which  we  are  moving.  They  are  not 
ready  to  accept,  for  instance,  the  pluralistic  nature  of  our  society. 
Almost  all  of  our  people  are  white,  Anglo-Saxon  Protestants — or 
WASPS,  as  the  sociologists  call  us.  In  our  community  we  have  not 
only  owned  our  churches,  but  also  the  courthouse  and  the  school 
house,  and  have  been  able  to  dominate  cultural  patterns  and  pre- 
serve our  way  of  life.  Now,  with  the  whole  wide  world  as  well  as  the 
federal  government  moving  in  on  us,  we  are  understandably  fright- 
ened. Things  are  simply  moving  too  fast  for  us.  Some  would  use 
the  words  which  are  the  title  of  a  recent  musical  comedy  on  Broad- 
way to  express  their  basic  immobilism,  "Stop  the  World,  I  Want 
to  Get  Off."    Our  people  may  not  be  too  ready  to  listen  to  us  as  we 


134 

stand  between  them  and  time  passing,  but  the  nature  of  things  de- 
mands that  we  assume  this  role.  In  addition  to  the  basics  of  the 
ministry  which  I  have  discussed,  I  must  strongly  underscore  that  at 
this  point  we  simply  must  do  our  homework  and  become  knowledge- 
able about  what  is  happening  to  our  small  earth  if  we  are  to  do  a 
good  job  as  prophetic  interpreter. 

I  suppose  that  none  of  us  knows  exactly  the  nature  of  the  new 
world  which  is  in  process  of  coming.  There  are  certain  broad  lines 
which  are  becoming  more  and  more  recognizable,  including  what  is 
called  the  process  of  urbanization  and  the  introduction  of  the  demo- 
cratic process  into  all  levels  of  our  common  life.  To  some  of  us 
these  lines  lead  into  a  possible  promised  land,  but  to  others  they 
lead  into  some  kind  of  welfare  state  which  threatens  to  deny  us 
privileges  which  we  have  long  assumed  are  ours  by  right.  Some  of 
these  people  remind  me  of  a  character  in  a  little  story  Dr.  Gilbert  T. 
Rowe  told  our  Pastors'  School  in  Florida  a  few  years  before  his 
death.  Two  mountain  boys,  Bud  and  Zeke,  are  sent  by  their  Ma 
across  the  valley  and  creek  to  load  the  ox  cart  with  apples.  While 
they  are  there  a  heavy  rain  comes  and  the  creek  rises.  On  their 
way  back  the  ox  and  cart  are  stalled  in  the  middle  of  the  stream 
while  it  is  still  rising.  To  the  consternation  of  Bud  and  Zeke  the 
apples  are  being  floated  out  of  the  cart  downstream.  Bud  runs  home 
to  tell  Ma  about  it  and  she  asks,  "Where  is  Zeke  and  what's  he 
doin'  ?"  Bud  tells  her,  "He  ain't  doin'  nothin'  but  sittin'  on  the  bank 
and  cussin'." 

What  an  apt  description  of  so  many  of  the  people  in  our  churches 
in  these  days.  If  we  presume  to  stand  between  our  people  and  time 
to  come,  we  must  win  their  confidence  as  real  persons  and  genuine 
parsons,  men  of  God  committed  to  honesty  and  redemptive  truth. 
Then  they  may  let  us  lead  them  into  the  new  day,  so  rapidly  dawn- 
ing upon  us. 

///.  The  Ministei-  as  the  Man-in-Between  His  People  and  God. 

The  old  roles  of  priest  and  prophet  still  help  us  to  understand 
the  major  role  of  the  modern  minister.  Both  priest  and  prophet  were 
in-between  human  beings  and  God,  one  seeking  to  lift  the  needs  of 
men  up  to  God  and  the  other  declaring  the  will  and  judgment  of 
God  to  men.  In  order  to  gain  a  better  focus  for  our  understanding 
of  the  minister  in  these  traditional  major  roles,  I  must  narrow  the 
discussion  to  the  setting  of  worship  and  preaching. 

My  major  disappointment  as  a  District  Superintendent  when   I 


135 

went  about  among  the  churches  participating  in  their  Sunday  ser- 
vices was  the  widespread  poverty  of  worship.  Broken-down  orders 
of  service,  extremely  poor  Hturgical  sense,  an  occasional  informaHty 
that  was  disrespect  to  Deity,  all  of  these  and  more  brought  distress 
to  my  mind.  I  had  already  had  experiences  of  attending  service  and 
not  really  finding  genuine  worship  going  on.  I  recall  one  occasion 
when  my  wife  and  I  attended  church  and  came  away  quite  empty. 
I  soon  confessed  that  I  had  not  worshipped  and  she  admitted  a 
similar  failure.  Together  we  sought  the  explanation.  We  came  fairly 
quickly  to  the  simple  conclusion  that  the  basic  cause  was  that  the 
minister  himself  was  not  at  worship.  He  was  so  obviously  playing 
a  little  role  with  a  high  degree  of  self-consciousness  and  even  of 
self-exhibition.  We  all  know  that  the  essential  presence  at  a  service 
of  worship  is  the  presence  of  God.  But  if  the  service  is  loaded  with 
too  much  presence  of  the  man  in  the  pulpit  or  an  over-awareness 
of  the  presence  of  human  beings  in  the  pews,  it  is  so  easy  to  leave 
no  room  at  all  for  the  presence  of  Deity.  So  many  of  our  church 
services  fail  at  this  point.  I  have  known  of  ministers  who  suffered 
from  such  a  degree  of  pathological  egocentricity  that  they  were  sus- 
tained in  their  role  as  parson  by  the  adoration  of  their  people.  Ser- 
vices of  worship  that  such  men  conduct  are  not  services  of  divine 
worship  at  all.  I  have  also  known  it  the  other  way  around  where 
the  pastor  manifests  a  dependency  toward  his  people  and  usually 
is  to  be  found  thanking  them  for  coming  out  to  church.  I  once  was 
in  a  service  where  the  minister  thanked  the  people  three  times  for 
coming  out  as  if  thereby  they  had  favored  him  and  the  Lord.  One 
could  ask,  where  is  the  Lord  high  and  lifted  up?  Where  are  the 
angels  declaring  the  glory  of  God  saying  "Holy,  Holy,  Holy  is  the 
Lord  God  of  hosts?"  Where  is  the  sense  of  mystery?  Where  is 
trembling  in  the  presence  of  the  Most  High? 

I  am  primarily  concerned  with  the  role  of  the  preacher  as  he 
becomes  the  man  in-between  God  and  other  men  when  he  preaches. 
As  I  understand  his  role  here,  I  believe  a  good  word  to  use  is  in- 
volvement. The  preacher  has  dared  to  involve  himself  in  the  Gospel 
transaction.  His  responsibility  is  to  produce  some  kind  of  divine- 
human  encounter,  and  to  create  for  his  hearers  an  evangelical  con- 
frontation. As  good  pastor  of  his  flock  he  will  be  not  unmindful  of 
his  people  in  their  sins  and  will  not  become  so  prophetically  aggres- 
sive that  he  fails  to  see  the  sins  of  his  people  in  the  light  of  God's 
mercy  and  so  to  preach  that  they  will  see  their  sins,  and  see  them  well, 
in  this  light. 


136 

I  think  that  a  very  large  number  of  us  actually  seek  an  avoidance 
of  this  involvement.  The  presumptuousness  of  it  seems  too  great, 
and  we  quietly  withdraw  from  it  and  surrender  for  lesser  levels  of 
pulpit  functioning.  Also  the  involvement  is  itself  a  painful  thing. 
To  declare  God's  judgment  and  offer  his  mercy  and  grace  seems 
too  great  a  treasure  in  these  earthen  vessels,  and  to  allow  ourselves 
to  be  involved  in  sins  and  troubles  of  our  people  is  to  lose  our  own 
ease  and  take  upon  ourselves  some  of  their  hurt  and  anxiety  and 
guilt.  One  of  my  associates,  just  out  of  seminary,  commented  after 
hearing  me  preach  for  several  Sundays,  that  I  was  violating  some- 
thing he  had  been  taught  in  seminary,  that  I  was  preaching  in  the 
first  person  while  he  had  been  taught  to  preach  in  the  third  person. 
I  don't  know  who  his  homiletics  teacher  was,  but  I  must  say  that 
I  do  not  see  how  one  can  really  preach  without  preaching  in  the 
first  person.  One  can  lecture,  one  can  make  an  address,  all  this  in 
the  third  person,  but  how  can  a  man  preach  without  involving  him- 
self in  his  Gospel  message? 

I  am  interested  in  how  some  men  avoid  this  evangelical  in- 
volvement. There  are  several  ways  to  do  it.  One  is  to  cast  your 
ministry  into  some  role  other  than  the  prophetic  or  the  priestly. 
Perhaps  the  most  common  of  these  other  types  is  that  of  the  pro- 
motional ministry,  into  which  many  men  of  my  acquaintance  have 
directed  the  basic  drive  of  their  ministry.  Of  one  such  promotional 
type  minister  a  discerning  member  of  his  church  remarked  one  day, 
"His  announcements  at  church  are  always  much  more  interesting 
than  his  sermons."  I  suppose  we  always  evaluate  our  predecessors, 
and  I  would  not  want  to  confess  to  you  today  some  of  the  things 
which  I  have  thought — and  sometimes  said — about  some  of  my  pre- 
decessors. But  the  most  devastating  thing  I  ever  heard  one  man  say 
about  his  predecessor  was,  "As  I  understand  his  ministry,  he  is 
basically  a  cheer  leader."  I  know  a  man  who  had  all  of  the  gifts 
which  are  commonly  supposed  to  make  for  success  in  the  ministry. 
He  was  tall  and  handsome,  robust  and  masculine,  personable  and 
magnetic,  and  endowed  with  a  marvelous  voice  which  had  been 
skillfully  trained.  But  this  man  suffered  a  defeat  in  the  midst  of 
what  should  have  been  a  highly  successful  pastorate.  The  essence  of 
his  failure  was  at  the  point  of  his  non-involvement  when  he  preached. 
In  a  moment  of  anxiety  he  confessed  to  me  what  his  best  lay  friend 
had  said  to  him  in  the  dead  of  night  following  an  unpleasant  con- 
frontation with  his  Pastoral  Relations  Committee.  The  layman  said, 
"Tom,  when  you  preach  everyone  in   the  congregation  is  listening 


137 

except  you."  I  realize  that  I  am  in  a  very  sensitive  area  and  I  pass 
from  it  with  a  quotation,  the  source  of  which  I  have  forgotten:  "No 
man  can  exhibit  himself  and  Jesus  Christ  at  the  same  time." 

There  remain  a  few  things  to  say  about  the  in-betweenness  in- 
volved in  the  preparation  and  delivery  of  sermons.  I  went  to  church 
one  day  and  heard  a  sermon  which  I  fear  is  typical  of  much  of  to- 
day's preaching.  The  preacher  knew  how  to  put  things  together 
and  produce  a  fairly  symmetrical  whole.  He  had  quite  obviously  read 
sermons  on  this  subject  from  other  preachers  along  with  the  Reader's 
Digest  and  other  such  literature.  As  I  listened  to  him  preach  I  tried 
to  find  the  degree  of  his  involvement  and  to  sense  the  involvement 
of  the  congregation  in  the  act  of  preaching.  But  he  himself  was  not 
involved.  He  had  snipped  and  clipped  and  assembled  all  this  as- 
sorted stuff,  but  it  had  none  of  his  own  sweat  and  blood  and  tears 
in  it.  The  people  seemed  to  be  listening  very  politely,  but  so  obviously 
they  were  not  pulled  into  the  concern  of  the  sermon.  Because  he 
was  not  painfully  involved,  neither  were  they  involved  at  all. 
There  was  no  impingement  on  their  consciences,  no  real  reaching  of 
their  souls,  no  laying  of  the  claim  of  God  upon  their  lives. 

This  raises  the  question  of  where  we  get  the  stuff  for  our  ser- 
mons. It  seems  tragic  to  me  that  some  of  us  are  busy  reading  each 
week  for  next  Sunday's  sermon.  And  that  our  main  diet  is  books 
of  sermons.  I  believe  that  if  we  could  declare  a  moratorium  on  the 
buying  and  reading  of  such  books  it  would  improve  preaching  all 
across  the  church  and  bring  the  kingdom  that  much  closer.  I  once 
said  this  in  a  panel  at  our  own  Pastors'  School,  knowing  that  with 
me  on  the  panel  was  Dr.  Wallace  Hamilton  and  that  outside  on  the 
bookstore  display  his  own  books  of  sermons  were  in  stacks  higher 
than  any  other  books.  One  of  his  books  was  called  Ride  the  Wild 
Horses.  When  I  made  this  statement  he  intervened  with  a  friendly, 
"Don't  say  that !"  I  had  an  inspiration  of  the  moment  and  replied, 
"But  you  know  what  happens.  When  the  brethren  ride  your  wild 
horses,  they  turn  them  all  too  quickly  into  Shetland  ponies."  I  am 
sure  that  it  would  be  difficult  to  have  one  rule  that  covers  everyone, 
but  as  a  general  principle  I  think  we  ought  to  be  doing  reading  this 
year  for  next  year's  sermons.  Once  I  repeated  the  little  routine  pre- 
viously given  about  ignorance  to  a  bright  young  Doctor  of  Philoso- 
phy. He  instantly  replied,  "Oh  yes,  that  comes  right  out  of  the  heart 
of  Reinhold  Niebuhr's  The  Nature  and  Destiny  of  Man."  I  did  not 
deny  the  possibility,  but  remembered  that  I  had  read  this  work  at  least 
ten  years  before  the  time  I  came  up  with  what  I  thought  was  an 


138 

original  gem.  This  illustrates  and  supports  my  main  point.  Few  ideas 
can  ever  be  original  to  us,  but  if  we  have  made  them  our  own,  even 
though  the  gestation  period  be  unusually  long,  they  are  more  effec- 
tive when  we  speak  them. 

When  we  preach,  we  should  be  preaching  out  of  the  level  of  the 
person,  out  of  our  authentic  selfhood,  and  what  we  are  giving  out, 
even  though  it  may  be  original  with  someone  else,  we  shall  have 
ingested,  absorbing  it  into  our  own  thought  and  faith  system,  so 
that  when  we  speak  the  words,  they  bear  the  witness  of  meaning 
for  us  and  in  us.  I  like  the  analogy  of  the  spider  weaving  his  web 
for  illustrating  preaching.  The  spider  has  eaten  certain  foods  which 
have  gone  into  him,  have  been  absorbed  into  his  system,  and  now  are 
extruded  by  him  to  form  a  web  of  beauty  and  usefulness.  I  think  that 
when  a  man  really  preaches  in  this  sense  he  is  breaking  off  a  little 
piece  of  himself  and  leaving  it  with  his  people,  and  at  the  same  time 
leaving  with  them  the  impression  that  when  he  reappears  for  another 
service  of  divine  worship  he  will  have  been  renewed  wholly  out  of 
powerful  resources  which  are  in  him  and  out  of  God  through  him. 

I  believe  that  I  can  conclude  what  I  have  tried  to  say  in  three 
propositions.  The  first  is  that  the  most  important  thing  in  the  world 
is  my  identity  as  a  human  being  who  by  the  grace  of  God  has  become 
a  Christian  person.  The  second  most  important  thing  in  the  world 
for  me  and  for  you  as  ministers  is  our  vocational  identity  as  good 
ministers  of  Jesus  Christ.  The  third  and  principal  thing  I  have  tried 
to  say  to  you  is  that  we  can  never  really  be  the  second,  the  parson, 
in  any  of  his  functions,  unless  we  have  become  deeply  the  first,  the 
person. 


Coflfee  House  Christianity 

Jerry  H.  Gill 
Candidate  for  the  Ph.D.  in  Religion,  1966 


With  all  due  apologies  to  Soren  Kierkegaard,  I  would  like  to 
borrow  the  titles  of  his  major  works  for  pegs  upon  which  to  hang 
the  following  discussion.  I  leave  it  to  the  reader  to  decide  whether  or 
not  Kierkegaard  would  object  to  such  procedure. 

Attack  upon  Christendom 

I  will  not  punish  any  of  us  by  dragging  out  all  the  too-oft-re- 
peated phrases  which  have  been  used  to  express  my  first  point.  We 
have  heard  and  seen  enough  of  "post-Christian  era",  "God  is  dead", 
"the  world  come  of  age",  and  the  like.  Suffice  it  to  say  that  in  recent 
times  the  relevancy  of  the  Christian  Church  has  been  strongly  chal- 
lenged by  nearly  every  aspect  of  human  existence.  Although  this  is  by 
no  means  a  new  challenge,  it  is  nonetheless  a  very  real  one. 

The  chaotic  events  of  our  beloved  cold-war  carry  with  them  an 
implicit,  but  odious,  question — just  where  is  the  Lord  of  History? 
The  rebellion  and  pessimism  found  in  the  world  of  contemporary 
art  also  reflects  the  "relevance-gap"  between  the  church  and  society. 
Both  of  the  main  branches  of  contemporary  philosophy,  Logical  Em- 
piricism and  Existentialism,  reject  the  Christian  message  as  "non- 
sense" and  "escapism"  respectively.  Even  some  of  the  leaders  of  the 
Church  itself  have  almost  given  up  on  it.  An  increasing  number  of 
seminary  graduates  are  seeking  a  place  of  service  outside  of  the 
institutional  church,  and  theologians  sometimes  claim  that  the  Church 
speaks  a  language  which  no  one  understands,  and  to  problems  which 
no  one  has.  There  can  be  no  denying  the  seriousness  of  this  full- 
orbed  "attack  upon  Christendom." 

The  Point  of  View 

It  would  be  ostrich-headed  to  contend  that  the  Church  has  done 
nothing  by  way  of  a  positive  response  to  this  now  famous  "attack". 
The  "Christian  Renewal"  issue  of  Time  Magazine  (December  25, 
1964)  provides  a  good  summary  of  a  wide  variety  of  constructive 
efforts  to  make  the  Christian  message  relevant.  One  significant  de- 
velopment which  has  received  a  minimum  of  attention  is  the  Christian 


140 

Coffee  House  "underground"  ("movement"  sounds  too  institution- 
al). My  purpose  in  this  article  is  to  explore  the  basis,  strategy,  and 
results  of  this  development. 

Although  I  will  of  necessity  base  most  of  what  I  say  upon  my 
own  first-hand  experience  with  one  such  Coffee  House,  there  is  good 
evidence  that  most  of  the  others  have  had  similar  experiences.  The 
religion  page  of  Newsweek  for  January  20,  1964,  supports  this 
claim,  as  does  an  unpublished  summary  of  some  half-dozen  church- 
related  Coffee  Houses  compiled  by  Mrs.  Carol  McDonald,  who  was 
the  driving  force  behind  the  origin  of  such  a  Coffee  House  in  St. 
Louis.  The  Potter's  House  operated  by  The  Church  of  the  Savior  in 
Washington,  D.  C,  The  Edge  in  Bryn  Mawr,  Pennsylvania,  The 
Door  in  Chicago,  Encounter  in  Lancaster,  Pennsylvania,  The 
Threshing  Floor  in  Greenwich  Village,  and  The  Precarious  Vision 
in  San  Francisco,  are  all  efforts  to  relate  Christianity  to  a  certain 
segment  of  society  which  has  pretty  generally  written  off  the  orga- 
nized Church. 

My  own  experience  with  this  unconventional  development  has 
been  in  connection  with  Le  Rapport  Coffee  House  in  Seattle,  Wash- 
ington. I  had  the  good  fortune  of  serving  as  program  chairman  dur- 
ing the  first  year  of  its  operation.  The  idea  for  this  Coffee  House 
was  born  in  a  young  couples'  discussion  group  in  the  Woodland 
Park  Presbyterian  Church,  The  basic  motivation  was  a  conviction 
that  far  too  often  Christian  people  talk  to  each  other,  instead  of  shar- 
ing their  perspective  with,  and  learning  from,  those  outside  of  the 
Church.  Moreover,  by  and  large,  Christians  expect  non-Christians 
to  come  into  the  church  building  to  hear  the  Christian  point  of  view. 
Why  not  meet  them  where  they  are,  in  an  atmosphere  of  openness? 

The  enterprise  was  quickly,  and  rather  informally,  underway  in 
September  of  1963.  Le  Rapport  is  run  on  a  non-profit  (in  plan  and 
most  certainly  in  fact),  volunteer  basis.  About  one-half  of  the  finan- 
cial support  comes  from  individual  gifts.  The  operation  includes  a 
first-rate  art  exhibit  and  occasional  co-operation  with  a  local  film 
society.  Although  not  in  one  of  the  main  business  or  university  cen- 
ters, Le  Rapport  is  located  next  door  to  The  Ridgemont  art-film 
theater,  and  has  received  a  great  deal  of  assistance  from  its  owner. 
Fortunately  and  unfortunately,  the  Coffee  House  has  no  official 
connection  with  the  organized  church.  This  is  fortunate  because  it  has 
allowed  for  great  strategical  mobility.  It  is  unfortunate  because  it 
has  resulted  in  limited  financial  mobility.  Most  of  the  above  mentioned 
Coffee  Houses  seem  to  be  more  closely  related  to  the  established 


141 

Church.  As  of   1965,  however,  Le  Rapport  is  receiving  $200  per 
month  from  the  Seattle  Presbytery  budget. 

Philosophical  Fragments 

The  programs  of  the  coffee  houses  are  quite  varied,  but  most 
include  group  discussion  of  contemporary  ideas,  art  exhibits,  jazz 
and  folksong  performances,  dramatic  and  poetry  presentations,  and 
film  showings.  In  addition,  a  great  deal  of  spontaneous,  informal 
discussion  takes  place.  The  unique  thing  about  Le  Rapport's  pro- 
gram is  its  regular  public  discussions  on  week-end  evenings.  Mr. 
and  Mrs.  Leon  Arksey  (a  local  college  professor  and  his  wife)  have 
had  the  responsibility  of  scheduling  the  discussions.  Most  of  these 
discussions  begin  at  10  p.m.  and  continue  into  the  early  morning 
hours.  The  discussion  topics  are  chosen  on  the  basis  of  their  signifi- 
cance in  religion,  the  various  arts,  and  contemporary  culture.  Lively 
and  significant  discussions  have  been  held  on  such  issues  as:  civil 
rights,  liturgical  jazz,  sex-love-and-meaning,  existentialism,  disarma- 
ment, political  conservatism,  Bertrand  Russell  and  Christianity,  the 
Bible  and  modern  science,  James  Baldwin,  Ingmar  Bergman's 
theological  trilogy,  and  the  McCarthy  film.  Point  of  Order. 

The  discussion  leaders  are  chosen  from  various  aspects  of 
Seattle's  religious  and  cultural  life.  They  usually  begin  with  a  brief 
introduction  to  the  topic  and  then  open  it  up  for  questions  and 
statements  of  conflicting  points  of  view  from  those  present.  To  date, 
the  discussions  have  been  led  by  local  political  leaders — including 
former  Governor  Rossellini  and  present  Governor  Evans — scholar- 
teachers  from  Seattle  colleges  and  universities,  actors  and  director 
Stuart  Vaughn  from  the  Seattle  Repertory  Theater,  and  a  large 
number  of  local  ministers.  The  late  Carl  Michalson,  theologian  from 
Drew  University,  participated  once,  and  there  has  been  a  good  deal 
of  Catholic- Protestant  dual-leadership  as  well. 

The  clientele  of  Le  Rapport  is  perhaps  a  bit  different  from  that 
of  most  of  the  other  coffee  houses  mentioned.  Whereas  they  seem  to 
attract  mostly  students  and/or  some  form  of  "cultural  rebels",  Le 
Rapport  attracts  mostly  young  business  and  professional  people,  as 
well  as  some  graduate  students.  This  difference  is  probably  more  a 
function  of  location  than  of  choice.  Nevertheless,  many  unchurched 
persons  who  are  active  in  the  intellectual,  political  and  cultural  life  of 
Seattle  have  taken  an  active  part  in  the  discussions.  The  number  of 
participants  varies  between  twenty-five  and  two  hundred.  The  "frag- 
ments" of  personal  philosophy  which  have  been  shared  at  L^  Rapport 


142 

have  made  an  actuality  out  of  its   stated  "creed",  borrowed  from 
Albert  Camus : 

, . .  that  tlie  world  needs  real  dialogue,  that  falsehood  is  just  as  much 
the  opposite  of  dialogue  as  is  silence,  and  that  the  only  possible  dia- 
logue is  the  kind  between  people  who  remain  what  they  are  and  speak 
their  minds.  This  is  tantamount  to  saying  that  the  world  of  today 
needs  Christians  who  remain  Christians. 

Either!  Or 

Well,  what  sort  of  impact  has  this  adventure  had  on  its  surround- 
ing society?  Both  the  Newsweek  article  and  Mrs.  McDonald's  sum- 
mary indicate  that  the  other  coffee  houses  are  having  a  good  deal 
of  success  in  closing  the  "relevancy-gap"  between  Christianity  and 
society.  There  are  four  main  values  being  realized  in  Le  Rapport's 
ministry  to  its  culture.  First,  the  very  fact  that  church  people  are 
involved  in  such  an  enterprise  has  been  a  strong  witness  to  the 
Church's  concern  to  be  identified  with  the  contemporary  world.  One 
person  who  became  a  frequent  and  active  participant  said,  "I  never 
thought  the  Church  had  it  in  itself  to  do  such  a  thing."  Second,  since 
a  very  strong  effort  is  made  to  keep  the  programming  on  an  inter- 
denominational basis,  real  growth  in  understanding  and  co-operation 
is  being  achieved  among  a  large  variety  of  denominations.  This  is 
especially  true  with  regard  to  Protestant-Catholic  relationships. 

Third,  a  real  cultural  service  is  being  rendered  to  the  city  of 
Seattle  at  L^  Rapport.  In  a  way,  the  coffee  house  could  be  classified 
as  large  scale  adventure  in  adult  education.  The  quality  of  the  dis- 
cussion leadership  is  very  high,  and  outstanding  people  from  nearly 
every  area  of  the  Seattle  scene  have  been  eager  to  participate.  Le 
Rapport  is  one  of  the  few  places  in  Seattle  where  public  discussion 
is  held  on  significant  and  timely  issues. 

Finally,  and  most  importantly,  real  dialogue  and  encounter  be- 
tween individuals  is  taking  place  at  Le  Rapport.  Very  often,  long 
after  the  public  discussion  has  ended,  small  groups  and  couples  will 
continue  to  discuss  the  issues  on  a  personal  level.  Much  friendship 
and  understanding  have  been  experienced  over  a  cup  of  coffee — 
often  by  persons  who  were  complete  strangers  at  the  outset. 

In  all  of  this  the  Christian  perspective  on  life  and  its  concrete 
problems  is  being  presented.  Sometimes  in  a  theoretic  way,  sometimes 
in  a  practical  way,  but  nearly  always  in  such  a  way  as  to  make  the  de- 
cisive, "either/or"  nature  of  the  Christian  life  quite  clear.  No  attempt 
is  made  to  screen  the  discussion  leaders,  nor  "guide"  the  discussion 


143 

into  a  Christian  interpretation.  The  hope  is  that  Le  Rapport 
provides  a  place  where  Christians  and  non-Christians  can 
discuss  issues  of  mutual  importance.  If  the  Christian  witness  is 
to  be  expressed,  Christians  must  be  present  and  express  it.  At  this 
coffee  house,  they  are  and  do ! 

Purity  of  Heart 

In  addition  to  its  cultural  impact,  the  Le  Rapport  adventure  is 
making  valuable  contributions  to  the  lives  of  those  Christians  who 
are  participating  in  it.  The  hearts  of  these  participants  are  being 
"purified"  on  at  least  three  levels.  To  begin  with,  a  new  depth  of 
understanding  is  being  achieved,  and  that  in  a  two-fold  fashion.  A 
new  understanding  of  exactly  what  the  unchurched  person  thinks, 
and  why  he  thinks  it,  is  taking  place  continually.  Needless  to  say, 
many  well-protected  stereotypes  have  had  to  be  jettisoned!  More- 
over, a  new  understanding  of  exactly  what  it  is  that  the  participating 
Christian  believes,  and  why,  also  takes  place.  Here  too,  a  great  deal 
of  growth  and  modification  almost  invariably  results. 

A  second  value  is  obtained  on  the  level  of  personal  honesty.  As 
Camus  points  out  in  the  above  quotation,  real  dialogue  presupposes 
personal  honesty.  In  the  type  of  discussions,  both  public  and  private, 
which  are  taking  place  at  Le  Rapport,  insincerity  and  lack  of  mutual 
acceptance  are  quickly  unmasked.  The  type  of  personality  trans- 
parency that  is  experienced  and  cultivated  in  honest  dialogue  with 
those  of  varying  basic  commitments  is  seldom  achieved  within  the 
structures  of  the  ecclesiastical  establishment. 

A  third  value  has  to  do  with  the  proper  method  of  sharing  the 
Christian  gospel.  Far  too  often  Christians  are  content  to  praise,  state, 
and  examine  the  Christian  message  in  a  vacuum,  as  if  it  were  some 
sort  of  abstract  entity.  In  addition  to  the  fact  that  the  best  witness 
to  the  dynamic  of  the  gospel  is  the  quality  of  the  life  lived  by  the 
Christian,  it  is  also  the  case  that  the  best  way  to  clarify  the  gospel 
is  to  show  its  implications  for  the  various  aspects  of  concrete  ex- 
perience. The  proper  way  to  demonstrate  the  value  of  a  light  is  to 
shine  it  on  the  path  which  is  being  walked,  not  upon  the  light  itself 
(assuming  this  were  possible)  !  Those  Christians  engaged  in  sharing 
Christianity  with  others  at  Le  Rapport  are  learning  that  the  most 
effective  witness  is  the  one  which  attempts  to  delineate  the  implica- 
tions of  the  Christian  perspective  for  the  crucial  issues  of  human 
existence. 


144 

Concluding  Unscientific  Postscript 

I  have  not  tried  to  say  that  the  estabHshed  church  should  be  ex- 
changed for  a  chain  of  cofifee  houses.  I  have  tried  to  say  that  Chris- 
tians need  to  seek  ways  of  sharing  the  Christian  life  which  are 
honest  and  integral  to  both  Christianity  and  God's  unchurched 
world.  Each  individual  must  seek  creative  ways  of  communicating 
his  faith.  Cofifee  house  Christianity  is  more  than  an  idea  or  an  inter- 
esting experiment;  it  is  a  way  of  life! 


The  Dearths  Discourse 


There  are  indications  on  every  side  that  theological  education  is 
in  for  a  thorough  and  systematic  self-assessment  in  the  next  few 
years.  We  have  already  begun  the  process  here  at  Duke.  The  precip- 
itating causes  are  many.  Superficially  considered,  an  immediate 
stimulant  is  the  forthcoming  debate  concerning  the  name  and  nature 
of  the  basic  theological  degree  which  will  be  a  principal  issue  before 
the  biennial  meeting  of  the  American  Association  of  Theological 
Schools  in  June.  After  some  unilateral  action  on  the  part  of  a  few 
schools,  such  as  Claremont,  Chicago  Divinity  School,  Boston,  and 
Wesley,  and  with  at  least  four  years  of  study  and  debate  in  the 
official  channels  of  the  Association,  it  is  rather  clear  that  a  major 
step  may  well  be  taken  to  "up-grade"  the  basic  theological  degree  to 
the  "Master's"  level. 

Claremont  instituted  a  Doctor  of  Religion,  four-year  degree, 
some  three  years  ago,  defended  with  customary  vigor  and  resource- 
fulness by  its  President  Colwell.  Boston  University  School  of  Theol- 
ogy announced  nearly  two  years  ago  its  intention  to  institute  an 
S.T.M.  beginning  in  1966  and  including  an  altered  curricular  pro- 
gram and  involving  extended  time  requirements  over  the  conven- 
tional three  academic  years.  The  University  of  Chicago  Divinity 
School  has  announced  a  four-year  program  leading  to  a  Doctorate 
of  Ministry,  and  now  Wesley  Theological  Seminary  has  announced 
a  Master  of  Theology  as  the  basic  degree  beginning  this  fall. 

On  the  whole,  the  older  and  long-established  institutions  have 
taken  a  conservative  line,  but  the  issue  will  be  decisively  joined  at  the 
AATS  meeting  in  June  with  a  commission  recommendation  on  the 
agenda  to  make  the  basic  theological  degree  either  a  B.D.  or  an 
M.Div.  (Master  of  Divinity).  Meanwhile,  it  has  been  the  declared 
judgment  of  this  faculty  that  any  "up-grading"  of  the  basic  theo- 
logical degree  must  necessarily  carry  with  it  a  genuine  "beefing-up" 
of  the  admissions,  curricular,  and  academic  performance  standards 
of  theological  schools.  It  is  for  this  reason,  in  part,  that  the  struc- 
ture, aims,  and  end-product  of  theological  education  are  bound  to 
come  under  scrutiny,  at  least  among  those  schools  and  faculties  which 
take  the  proposed  "up-grading"  as  something  more  than  faqade  or 
status  building. 

But,  apart  from  the  issue  as  raised  by  the  prolonged  discussion 
of  "degree  nomenclature",  there  is  an  increasing  awareness  that  theo- 


146 

logical  education  is  long  overdue  a  pretty  thorough-going  renovation. 
Basically,  it  is  caught  between  the  inevitably,  even  properly,  competi- 
tive aims  of  academic  vis-a-vis  professional  concerns.  Long  ago  we 
might  have  discerned  that  theological  education  must  become  sound- 
ly professional,  perhaps  even  "cHnical",  while  embracing  academic 
integrity  demanded  by  inescapable  dependency  upon  historical  and 
systematic  disciplines.  It  is  now  past  time  for  candor  in  this  matter. 
Among  other  things,  this  means  that  if  real  competence  is  to  be 
acquired  on  both  the  professional  and  academic  sides,  as  is  imi>era- 
tive,  then  the  comprehensive  survey-type  of  the  theological  studies 
program  must  be  rather  radically  modified. 

I  may  be  mistaken,  but  I  would  venture  the  judgment  that  grad- 
uates of  theological  schools  ought  to  go  forth  with  an  enhanced  mea- 
sure of  self-esteem  that  in  part  is  fostered  by  the  inner  assurance  that 
within  a  delimited  domain  they  are  moderate  masters  of  some  disci- 
pline within  the  continuum  of  theological  knowledge  and  under- 
standing. It  may  be  New  Testament  exegesis ;  it  may  be  psycho- 
therapy and  the  Christian  message ;  it  may  be  the  history  of 
Christian  art  or  the  shape  of  present-day  Christological  discussion  ; 
it  may  be  ministry  and  ecclesiastical  government.  Whatever  it  is, 
it  will  contribute  to  the  inward  assurance  that  characterizes  the 
educated  man.  But  this  will  call  for  some  radical  revision  of  the 

theological  program,  and  I  believe  we  are  in  for  it. 

*     *     * 

It  is  with  very  genuine  regret  that  the  Dean  and  faculty  of  the 
Divinity  School  will  be  obliged  to  give  "hail  and  farewell"  to  Pro- 
fessor Hugh  Anderson  at  the  end  of  the  current  academic  year.  He 
has  accepted  the  New  Testament  Chair  in  the  succession  of  James 
Stewart  at  New  College,  University  of  Edinburgh,  Scotland.  When 
his  countrymen  called,  "Come  over  to  Caledonia  and  help  us,"  Hugh 
Anderson,  with  an  apostolic  sense  of  stewardship  and  a  Presbyterian 
sense  of  divine  election,  was  disposed  to  comply.  He  goes  to  one  of 
the  notable  theological  posts  of  Scotland  and  with  a  sense  of  respon- 
sibility and  mission  to  the  cause  of  ministerial  education  in  his  home 
country. 

Dr.  Anderson  joined  the  faculty  of  Duke  University  Divinity 
School  as  Associate  Professor  of  Biblical  Theology  in  the  fall  of 
1957.  He  was  promoted  to  Professor  of  Biblical  Criticism  and  Theol- 
ogy in  the  fall  of  1963.  He  has  been  valued  as  a  colleague  by  all  the 
faculty,  greatly  sought  by  students,  and  a  principal  contributor  to 
New  Testament  studies  leading  to  the  doctor's  degree.   Dr.  Ander- 


147 

son's  contribution  to  the  American  pulpit  has  been  notable,  and  his 
eloquence  and  authentic  Christian  witness  will  be  long  remembered 
in  many  churches  of  the  land.  He  has  brought  luster  to  the  name  of 
Duke  Divinity  School  by  his  several  important  publications,  most 
notably  by  his  distinguished  book,  Jesus  and  Christian  Origins  (Ox- 
ford University  Press,  1964).  We  shall  miss  his  wife,  Jean,  as  well 
as  Hugh,  and  we  wish  them  both,  and  their  three  children,  Gordon, 
Kenneth,  and  Louise,  Godspeed  as  they  resume  the  common  ministry 
in  Old  Scotia. 

— Robert  E.  Cushman 


at 


LOOKS 
BOOKS 


He  Died  As  He  Lived.   James  T.  Qeland.    Abingdon.  1%6.    79  pp.  $2. 

Dr.  James  T.  Qeland,  Dean  of  the  Chapel  and  James  B.  Duke  Professor 
of  Preaching  at  Duke  University,  has  published  another  book.  To  those  who 
have  read  his  previous  volumes.  Wherefore  Art  Thou  Come?  and  the  War  rack 
Lectures,  Preaching  to  Be  Understood,  that  simple  statement  is  sufficient  to 
arouse  their  interest  in  reading  his  latest  volume.  Having  devoured  this 
homiletical  chef's  T-bone  and  rib-eye  offerings,  they  will  now  be  ready  to  taste 
his  filet  mignon ! 

He  Died  As  He  Lii'cd  is  a  group  of  meditations  dealing  with  the  cruci- 
fixion. They  are  seven  in  number,  treating  The  Seven  Last  Words,  but  with 
a  Prologue  and  an  Epilogue. 

Dean  Qeland  owed  this  book  to  his  students  and  former  students,  and  to 
the  Chapel  congregations  who  hear  him  preach  from  month  to  month.  The 
cross  and  Christ's  words  spoken  from  it  are  so  central  to  the  meaning  and 
acquisition  of  our  salvation  that  they  should  be  continually  re-interpreted  by 
our  best  preachers.  One  volume  on  The  Seven  Last  Words  by- — say,  T.  E. 
Green — published  sixty-seven  years  ago,  is  not  enough.  We  have  since  had 
books  on  these  Words  from  Almon  Abbott,  Gains  Glenn  Atkins,  George 
Buttrick,  Clovis  Chappell,  J.  A.  McElroy,  Carlyle  Marney,  Fulton  J.  Sheen, 
and  many  others.  It  is  good,  now,  to  have  this  fresh  interpretation  from 
our  Scottish  colleague,   who  excels  in  freshness. 

As  is  the  case  with  other  preacher-authors,  Dean  Qeland  lets  us  look  at 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  on  the  cross,  but  he  also  helps  us  to  understand  that 
through  His  Words  Christ  is  also  looking  at  us.  Perhaps  the  most  noticeable 
and  consistent  difference  between  Dean  Cleland's  treatment  and  the  treatment 
given  by  these  other  authors  is  his  delineation  of  the  teachings  and  acts  in 
Christ's  earlier  ministry  which  were  in  harmony  with  His  dying  words  on 
the  cross.  Indeed,  the  author  has  a  thesis  for  the  seven  meditations  which 
he  states  succinctly :  "...  what  our  Lord  said  from  the  cross  is  an  echo,  a 
reiteration  of  what  he  said  during  his  ministry." 

If  that  is  Professor  Cleland's  thesis,  what  is  his  central  affirmation?  I 
think  it  is  a  statement  made  in  his  comment  on  the  Second  Word :  "...  we 
don't  get  into  heaven  because  we're  good.  We  get  into  heaven  because  God 
is  good." 

This  volume  is  free  from  the  undefined  technical  jargon  which  often  clogs 
the  writings  of  contemporary  theologians  who  ask  the  layman  to  read  what 
they  publish.  (He  does  not  hesitate  to  furnish  the  Greek  word  for  "It  is 
finished,"  but  he  translates  it  clearly.)  The  word,  technopolis,  does  not  appear 
in  this  book,  nor  will  the  reader  find  such  theological  hammers  and  shovels 
as  demythologize,  hermeneutics,  typology,  or  soteriology.  Qeland's  volume 
is  laced  with  profound  insights,  but  the  author  does  not  attempt  to  gain  a 
reputation  for  profundity  by  the  cheap  route  of  obscurity.  (As  was  said  of 
Abou  Ben  Adliem,  "may  his  tribe  increase!") 

Students  of  the  Bible  will  be  surprised — and  rejoice ! — to  discover  that 
Dean  Qeland  notes  his  Biblical  references  and  quotations,  thus  making  it  easy 
for  the   reader   to   refer   to  the   passage   being  used.     This    little   book   ofTers 


149 

provocative  thought:  both  Gehenna  and  Paradise  are  defined  as  suburbs  of 
Sheol.  The  author  coins  a  number  of  welcome,  dictionary-type  definitions : 
"A  person  is  merciful  when  he  feels  the  sorrow  and  misery  of  another  as  if 
it  were  his  own." 

The  individual  who  absorbs  this  book  may  feel  occasionally  that  he  is  more 
a  listener  than  a  reader,  as  he  encounters  a  delivery  style  of  writing. 
Preacher  Cleland  knows  how  to  handle  a  one-word  sentence,  even  in  type ! 
For  instance :  "The  family  table  and  the  family  pew  are  furniture  in  the  one 
home.  Good."  Or  again :  "He  had  praised  a  father  who  welcomed  his 
prodigal  son  home,  when  the  boy  didn't  deserve  it.     Mercy." 

Duke's  adopted  Scot  sees  both  the  Fourth  and  Fifth  Words  as  confirming 
footnotes  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation.  He  views  the  Fourth  Word  as 
a  cry  of  spiritual  pain  from  the  soul  of  a  forsaken  man,  and  the  Fifth  Word 
as  a  cry  of  physical  pain  from  the  body  of  a  tortured  man. 

This  small  volume  contains  exposition  and  exegesis,  yet  it  is  not  primarily 
a  scholarly  work  on  the  Biblical  text.  It  is  the  work  of  a  master  homiletician, 
yet  it  is  not  chiefly  a  feast  of  homiletics.  Rather,  it  is  basically  a  reverent 
book  of  worship,  of  thoughtful  and  penetrating  insights  which  pierce  the 
conscience  and  galvanize  the  will.  The  reader  is  almost  predestined  to  be  a 
better  Christian ! 

— Howard  C.  Wilkinson 
Chaplain  to  Duke  University 

Situation  Ethics:   The  New  Morality.     Joseph  Fletcher.     Westminster   Press. 
1966.    176  pp.    $1.95  (paper). 

All  the  advance  notices  promised  that  this  would  be  lively,  exciting,  pro- 
vocative, occasionally  vexing,  sometimes  even  irritating,  reading.  It  is.  It  is 
also  the  most  cogent  and  coherent  argument  for  situation  ethics  yet  to  appear 
in  print.  For  these  reasons  alone,  it  will  become  standard  reading  in  my 
courses. 

The  so-called  "new  morality"  continues  to  incite  a  very  great  deal  of  popular 
misunderstanding  which  this  book  ought  to  do  much  to  correct.  For  more 
than  a  decade  now.  Christian  moralists  have  become  increasingly  preoccupied 
with  whether  Christian  ethics  is  chiefly  imperative  or  indicative,  with  whether 
the  basic  question  is  "what  ought  I  to  do  in  obedience  to  God's  command?" 
or  "what  am  I  to  do  as  a  believer  in  Jesus  Christ?"  The  choice  may  seem  an 
indifferent  one,  but  ink  and  blood  have  been  spilled  over  less  vital  questions. 
Protagonists  for  both  positions  argue  that  the  starting-points  of  the  decision- 
making process  are  appropriately  polarized  by  these  questions  and  that  it  makes 
a  profound  difference  whether  one  opts  for  authority,  law,  and  a  metaphysically 
and  intrinsically  oriented  value  system  (the  imperative  mood)  or  freedom, 
grace,  and  an  existentially  and  situationally  shaped  ethics  (the  indicative  mood). 

Joseph  Fletcher  introduces  this  book  with  an  argument  in  favor  of  situation 
ethics  as  a  way  of  approaching  decision-making  that  will  not  fall  prey  to  the 
dangers  in  either  of  these  extremes  but  be  a  genuine  via  media.  Instead  of 
asking  what  ought  I  to  do  or  what  am  I  to  do,  he  argues  that  the  "very  first 
question  in  all  ethics"  is  "What  do  I  want?"  (p.  42)  The  primary  problem  is 
thus  obviously  a  value  problem,  the  choice  of  one's  siimmum  bonum  (p.  43). 
By  putting  the  ethical  question  this  way,  Fletcher  intends  that  situation  ethics 
be  juxtaposed  to  both  "legalistic"  and  "antinomian"  approaches,  which  enter 
decisive  moments  either  forearmed  with  inviolable  rules  to  be  applied  always 
and  to  everybody  alike  or  wholly  without  any  principles  and  entirely  reliant 
upon  the  situation  to  offer  its  own  solutions. 

Situation  ethics  enters  the  decision-making  context  armed   with  principles, 


150 

but  they  are  hypothetical  and  not  categorical,  i.e.,  they  are  not  to  be  treated 
as  inviolable  laws  but  have  validity  only  in  the  measure  to  which  they  are 
applicable  in  a  situation.  And  "if  love  seems  better  served  by  doing  so,"  prin- 
ciples may  be  either  compromised  or  abandoned    (p.  26). 

If  one  asks,  "What  guides  decisions  when  principles  are  abandoned?" 
Professor  Fletcher  answers  that  "Christian  situation  ethics  has  only  one  norm 
or  principle  or  law  .  .  .  that  is  binding  and  unexceptionable,  always  good 
and  right  regardless  of  the  circumstances.  That  is  'love' — the  agape  of  the 
summary  commandment  to  love  God  and  the  neighbor.  Everything  else  .  .  . 
(is)  only  continqcnt,  only  valid  //  the\  happen  to  serve  love  in  any  situation." 
(p.  30)  ^ 

This,  in  sum,  is  the  substance  of  the  book.  What  follows  in  the  remaining  140 
pages  is  chiefly  explication  and  illustration  of  the  situational  method.  It  is 
perceptive  and  passionate  and  provocative  writing ;  and  no  one  would  be  more 
surprised  than  Joseph  Fletcher  if  this  book  failed  to  excite  critical  response, 
because  he  knows  better  than  most  just  how  j(«-traditional  his  approach  really 
is.  The  first  thing  to  be  said  about  this  book,  then,  has  to  be  a  word  of  thanks. 
It  is  engagingly  written  and  betrays  throughout  the  compassionate  and  critical 
temper  of  the  man  who  wrote  it.  I  expect  this  book  to  be  around  for  awhile 
because  the  position  it  takes  will  probably  not  be  better  stated  anytime  soon. 
In  brief,  I  suspect  that  Professor  Fletcher  has  argued  the  case  for  situationism 
as  convincingly  as  one   (in  our  situation)   can. 

This  is  not  to  say  that  the  case  is  convincing.  At  least  there  are  several 
questions  which  deserve  to  be  raised  and  an  observation  or  two  to  be  made. 

In  the  first  place,  this  book  does  not  manage  to  maintain  the  mediating 
position  which  it  claims  for  itself.  Its  emphasis  is  plainly  on  teleology  (cf. 
p.  43),  and  a  role  for  deontological  ethics  is  very  uncertain  indeed.  The  only 
imperative  which  Fletcher  acknowledges  merely  enjoins  one  to  will  whatever 
in  the  situation  may  be  right;  but  what  is  right  is  to  be  calculated  in  terms 
of  a  sunimum  bonum  which,  for  the  Christian,  "is  neighbor-centered  first  and 
last"  (p.  31). 

This  procedure  itself,  however,  is  mistaken  if  one  recalls  that  the  summum 
bonum,  in  Christian  thought,  has  been  seen  as  integral  to  the  summwn  esse; 
and  that,  therefore,  to  ask  the  question  of  the  highest  good  is  to  speak  within 
both  ontological  and  hierarchical  categories.  Yet  Fletcher  maintains  that  the 
neighbor's  good  cannot  be  anticipatorily  prescribed  by  reference  to  any  such 
esse  but  can  only  be  decided  in  each  "definite,  yet  unconcluded,  unique  and 
transient  situation"  (p.  ZZ).  The  reason  for  this  may  be  got  at,  provision- 
ally perhaps,  by  a  closer  look  at   Fletcher's  understanding  and  use  of  agape. 

What  guides  one  in  willing  the  neighbor's  good  in  the  situation  is,  of 
course,  "love".  But  this  is  love  regarded  as  a  "predicate"  only,  i.e.,  as  non-sub- 
stantive and  formal,  as  a  principle  which  expresses  "what  type  of  real  actions 
Christians  are  to  call  good"  (p.  60).  Agape,  Fletcher  argues,  is  nothing  "given" 
or  objectively  real  or  self-existent  in  the  context  of  our  existence.  "Only  in 
the  divine  being,  only  in  God,  is  love  substantive.  With  men  it  is  a  formal 
principle,  a  predicate.  Only  with  God  is  it  a  property.  This  is  because  God  is 
love.  Men,  who  are  finite,  only  do  love."  (p.  62)  With  this  Fletcher  has 
affirmed  a  "transcendent  form"  in  the  classical  Platonic-Aristotelian  tradition 
and,  having  allowed  the  rules  of  the  game  to  be  so  set,  he  is  beaten  before 
play  begins — unless  he  can  devise  some  way  by  which  the  "real"  can  be  ex- 
perienced and  evaluated  without  reference  to  the  "ideal". 

But  what  Fletcher  wants  to  do  cannot  be  done  in  the  way  he  has  chosen. 
He  has  so  defined  "situation"  as  to  make  it  ready-made,  a  simple  "that's  how 


151 

it  is",  just  as  Platonic-Aristotelian  thought  defined  the  being  of  man  as  ready- 
made.  What  was  non-being  to  Plato,  namely,  the  world  of  becoming,  is  simple 
being  for  Fletcher;  and  Fletcher's  non-being  (i.e.,  that  which  cannot  be 
structured)  is  consciousness.  But  both  are  ahistorical  because  both  are  ex- 
carnate  ways  of  thinking  about  being  and  value.  There  is  no  intrinsic  com- 
munion between  being  and  non-being,  or  between  the  decision-maker  and  the 
situation  in  which  he  finds  himself.  For  Fletcher,  one  is  not  embodied  in  a 
situation ;  he  is  simply  "up  against"  a  situation.  What  one  does,  therefore,  "in" 
the  situation  has  no  intrinsic  corrolary  to  what  the  person  becomes.  The  irony 
of  the  situational  approach  is  that  it  is  not  situational  enough  !  The  situation, 
as  "objective  circumstances"  (p.  14),  is  really  alien;  it  is  "the  case"  or  "what  is". 

One  would  want  to  argue  here  that  love  cannot  simply  be  taken  or  placed 
outside  the  world  and  then  brought  back  via  situational  ethics.  If  agape 
is  not  "given"  in  the  context  of  our  existence,  one  must  always  regard 
the  situation  as  extrinsic  to  agape ;  and  if  this  be  the  case,  then  the  problem 
of  the  "good"  can  never  arise  because  agape  cannot  become  embodied  in  acts 
in  which  the  person,  his  situation,  and  his  decision  are  all  in  deep  communion 
and  mutual  dialogue. 

Whatever  else  Fletcher's  understanding  and  use  of  agape  may  mean,  it 
certainly  suggests  to  me  that  agape  is  not  a  human  possibility  and  that  there- 
fore we  do  not,  in  any  serious  sense,  genuinely  participate  in  the  redemptive 
love  of  God.  My  incapacity  for  the  love  of  which  only  God  is  capable  (for  which 
there  is  no  explanation  or  accounting  by  Fletcher,  but  only  the  positing)  thus 
makes  meaningless  the  command  "to  be  like  God,  to  imitate  him"  (p.  63).  But, 
in  addition,  it  limits  my  decisions  and  acts  to  a  kind  of  heroic  fatalism. 

Urgent  questions,  moreover,  are  certainly  raised  about  the  reality  and  bear- 
ing of  Incarnation  upon  this  way  of  doing  ethics.  Christian  ethics  has  tradi- 
tionally held  not  only  that  the  imitatio  Dei  is  a  distinct  possibility  for  one  who 
acknowledges  that  God  was  in  Christ,  but  also  that  obedience  to  that  prototypal 
divine  love  manifested  in  him  is  explicitly  commanded.  If  we  are  indeed  in- 
capable of  expressing  agape  particularly  and  concretely,  then  it  needs  to  be 
shown  how  tliis  is  so  in  view  of  the  Incarnation.  Meanwhile,  it  is  a  more  tenable 
view  that  love,  like  conciousness,  is  always  incarnate,  that  is,  it  is  a  being-in- 
the-world  through  my  being-in-my-body ;  and,  as  such,  this  being  is  fluid  with- 
out being  groundless,  structured  and  structuring  without  being  substantive 
and  forever  the  same.  The  agape  of  which  Fletcher  speaks  is  excarnate  and  for 
that  reason  non-situational. 

To  return  for  a  moment  to  the  assertion  that  love  is  a  principle  which  ex- 
presses "what  type  of  real  actions  Christians  are  to  call  good" :  Professor 
Fletcher  points  out  that  these  actions,  as  indicative  of  value,  are  worthy  only 
because  the  action  "happens  to  help  persons  (thus  being  good)  or  to  hurt  per- 
sons (thus  being  bad)"  (p.  59).  He  argues,  further,  that  "Apart  from  the 
helping  or  hurting  of  people,  ethical  judgments  or  evaluations  are  meaning- 
less. .  .  .  Christian  situation  ethics  asserts  firmly  and  definitely :  Value,  worth, 
ethical  quality,  goodness  or  badness,  right  or  zvrong — these  things  are  only 
predicates,  they  are  not  properties."  (p.  60)  In  other  words,  situation  ethics 
is  nominalistic,  but  with  a  twist :  whereas  medievalists  argued  that  good  is  good 
because  God  regards  it  as  such,  Fletcher  argues  that  man  makes  this  judgment. 
Objective  value  theory,  in  whatever  guise,  is  of  course  rejected. 

It  deserves  remarking  in  this  connection  that  throughout  the  book  too  many 
basic  problems  are  too  easily  dismissed.  Fletcher  regards  the  ease  with  which 
situational  casuistry  resolves  problems  as  one  of  its  advantages ;  but  it  is 
precisely  the  ease  with  which  decisions  and  acts  are  applauded  or  condemned 
that  makes  me  uncomfortable. 


152 

There  are  also  other  questions  which,  however  awkward,  merit  asking. 
One  of  them  is :  How  does  one  know  that  he  is  doing  (or  has  done)  the  loving 
thing  (to  do)  in  the  situation?  What  judges  decision  and  action?  Given 
Fletcher's  definition  and  use  of  principles  (i.e,  that  they  are  "illuminators" 
but  not  "directors"),  one  wonders  whether  in  this  sense  they  retain  whatever 
it  is  that  denominates  them  "principles"  at  all?  Situation  ethics,  it  is  argued, 
"does  not  ask  u'ltat  is  good  but  hou>  to  do  good  for  zvhoin  ;  not  what  is  love 
but  how  to  do  the  most  loving  thing  possible  in  the  situation."  (p.  52)  Is  it 
really  the  case  that  one  is  so  entirely  void  of  any  notion  with  respect  to  what 
love  demands  ?  It  is  certainly  true  that  every  new  decision  is  called  for  in  the 
light  of  its  own  peculiar  and  unique  circumstances  and  that,  therefore,  no 
inflexible  rule  or  guide  for  right  decision-making  may  be  supposed  as  the  sole 
(or  even  most  important)  criterion  for  determining  or  shaping  duty.  But  one 
comes  to  every  new  moral  decision  with  the  resources  of  both  principles  and 
judgments  which  have  been  formulated  in  previous  decisions.  Neither  value 
system  nor  situation  can  thus  be  said  to  be  autonomous  in  the  decisive  moment ; 
and  what  love  j.$-  will  then  shape  how  one  is  to  do  it,  and  vice  versa.  One  may 
agree  with  Fletcher  that  obligation  in  the  situation  cannot  be  identified  with 
objectively  "right"  acts  while  insisting  nevertheless  that  one  ought  to  try  to 
decide  what  is  right  or  good  in  this  objective  sense.  The  "deposit"  of  value 
judgments  brought  to  new  moments  of  decision  cannot  be  either  dismissed 
or  given  inferior  status  in  the  decision-making  process. 

Traditionally,  Christian  ethics  has  been  thought  to  be  inseparable  from  a 
religious  milieu  in  which  God  has  something  to  do  with  the  meaning  of  right 
and  wrong,  good  and  bad,  and  from  which  the  moral  norms  which  assess  human 
conduct  derive.  Whether  the  neighbor  is  helped  or  hurt,  then,  may  not  depend 
upon  reason  operating  apart  from  the  religious  tradition,  i.e.,  whether  self  or 
neighbor  gets  what  he  wants  out  of  this  decision/act.  How  the  neighbor  is 
(to  be)  treated  may  rather  be  formulated  and  assessed  by  reference  to  God's 
intention  for  him.  That  the  neighbor  is  to  be  loved  and  what  it  means  to  love 
him  are  thus,  it  would  seem,  antecedent  to  doing  it.  The  error  of  the  situationist 
approach  may  lie  in  the  extravagance  rather  than  the  exclusiveness  of  its 
claim  that  "Christian  action  should  be  tailored  to  fit  objective  circumstances, 
the  situation."  (p.  14)  In  either  case,  it  promises  more  than  it  can  produce. 
For  if  alternative  courses  of  action  are  wholly  judged  according  to  the  circum- 
stances of  the  existential  moment  and  my  possibility  for  transcending  this 
limitation  be  entirely  excluded,  then  freedom  becomes  only  a  solicitous  plati- 
tude and  I  am  victimized  by  the  most  brutal  kind  of  contextual  and  imper- 
sonal determinism. 

Finally,  a  quotation  will  illustrate  the  functional  worth  of  a  value  system 
(as  I  think  Fletcher's  "nonsystem"  to  be)  derived  from  precommitmeiits  to 
pragmatism,  positivism,  and  relativism:  "The  situationist  holds  that  whatever 
is  the  most  loznng  thing  in  the  situation  is  the  right  and  good  thing.  It  is 
not  excusably  evil,  it  is  positively  good."  (p.  65)  Thus,  if  a  lie  be  told  unlov- 
ingly,  it  is  wrong ;  but,  if  it  be  told  in  love,  it  is  good. 

It  has  long  been  recognized  that  we  often  are  confronted  by  a  limited  range 
of  act-possibilities  over  which  we  exercise  little  or  no  control,  but  it  has  not 
been  argued  before  that  necessity  in  the  form  of  situational  problematics  can 
make  otherwise  ambiguous  choices  Christianly  and  positively  good !  The  em- 
pirical and  casuistical  temper  of  situationism  has  led  it,  at  this  point,  to  a 
value  theory  both  unwarranted  and  untenable. 

It  is  unwarranted  because  the  range  of  moral  understanding  is  not  ex- 
hausted by  assuming  that  what  appears  best  under  the  circumstances  can  be 
called  "positively  good."  It  cannot  be  consistently  maintained,  for  example, 
that  "killing  'innocent'  people  might  be  right."    (p.  75)    Killing  innocent  peo- 


153 

pie,  perhaps  in  wartime,  may  be  unavoidable ;  it  may  even  seem  to  be  relatively 
good  as  the  better  course  to  take  among  limited  alternatives ;  but  it  cannot  be 
assigned  unambiguous  moral  value.  Rather,  if  "justification  by  grace"  be  taken 
seriously,  one  need  not  exonerate  from  moral  responsibility  by  calling  equivocal 
acts  "right"  or  "positively  good".  Their  contingent  and  provisional  character 
can  be  recognized  and  accepted  for  what  it  is,  namely,  morally  ambiguous 
however  necessary !  Forgiveness  permits  us  to  live  without  the  choices  we  would 
have  preferred  but  didn't  have.  But  it  is  precisely  this  quality  of  the  moral 
life  that  one  misses  in  the  situationist's  baptism  of  existential  necessity  with 
the  waters  of  normative  relativism. 

The  value  theory  advocated  here  is,  further,  untenable  because  it  estab- 
lishes the  base  for  the  methodological  model  upon  the  exceptional  case.  Al- 
though Professor  Fletcher  introduces  the  method  of  situation  ethics  with  defer- 
ence to  the  place  of  principles  in  the  decision-making  process,  every  case  which 
he  cites  as  illustrative  of  the  situational  approach  demonstrates  abandonment 
of  generally  accepted  maxims.  For  example,  he  relates  parallel  stories  of  two 
women  whose  crying  children  threatened  the  safety  of  their  respective  wagon 
trains  moving  west  (p.  125).  One  woman  killed  her  baby  "with  her  own  hands", 
and  she  and  her  companions  reached  the  sanctuary  of  the  fort ;  the  other  woman 
tried  unsuccessfully  to  soothe  her  baby,  and  she  and  her  party  were  dis- 
covered and  destroyed  by  Indians.  Fletcher's  altogether  rhetorical  question, 
"Which  woman  made  the  right  decision?",  is  much  too  simplistic  in  its  implied 
answer.  Moreover,  he  is  guilty  of  doing  precisely  what  he  elsewhere  con- 
demns, namely,  asking  one  to  generalize  value  judgments  without  careful 
scrutiny  of  the  whole  range  of  contextual  configurations.  But,  beyond  all  else, 
it  is  not  inconceivable  to  me  that  a  group  of  people  might  deliberately  choose 
almost  certain  death  (whether  at  the  hands  of  Indians,  Nazis,  or  the  KKK) 
rather  than  submit  to  existence  bought  at  a  cost  which  would  reduce  life  to 
animality. 

What  emerges  from  Situation  Ethics  is  a  way  of  doing  ethics  which  is  cer- 
tainly a  corrective  to  old-line  legalism  and  pietism.  But  if  it  were  widely 
accepted  and  practiced,  both  Professor  Fletcher  and  I  would  be  put  out  of  our 
jobs.  For  what  is  oflfered  here  requires  no  reflection  from  the  "professional" 
moralist  and  theologian.  Indeed,  it  is  plain  that  the  theologizing  task  is 
undertaken  by  anyone  who  thinks  about  "God",  although  this  thinking  need 
not  be  done  within  the  perspective  of  systematic,  historical,  or  dogmatic  Chris- 
tian reflection.  What,  precisely,  this  "God  thinking"  comes  to  is  far  from  clear. 

What  is  more  certain  is  that  one  of  the  most  serious  weaknesses  of  this 
book  is  its  radical  individualism  and  its  limited  capacity  to  deal  significantly 
with  social  issues.  These  issues,  in  fact,  are  only  infrequently  mentioned,  and 
one  is  left  to  wonder  how  the  situationist  method  would  take  shape  in  such 
problem  areas  as  race,  war,  and  the  like.  Another  large  question-mark  deserves 
to  be  placed  by  Fletcher's  implied  anthropology.  It  may  be  granted  that  man 
can  respond  to  the  love  of  God ;  the  urgent  question  is  whether  he  does  in  any 
manner  consistent  with  the  character  and  authority  which  Fletcher  apparently 
wishes  to  assign  him. 

This  review  has  been  written  in  the  context  of  an  imminent  printing  dead- 
line, so  there  is  more  to  be  said  and  written.  Nevertheless,  and  at  the  risk  of 
concluding  rather  obliquely,  the  prevailing  mood  of  Situation  Ethics  (in  my 
situation)  seems  well  represented  by  a  remark  from  the  defense  attorney  in  the 
recent  and  celebrated  Mossier  murder  trial.  Said  Percy  Forman :  "My  clients 
want  freedom,  not  justice."  (Life,  April  1,  1966)  That,  in  a  nutshell,  just  might 
be  the  credo  of  the  new  morality  in  general,  and  this  book  in  particular. 

— Harmon  L.  Smith 


154 


The  Satanzvard  Viezv:  A  Study  in 
Pmdine  Theology.  James  Kallas. 
Westminster.   1966.   152  pp.  $4.50. 

Here  is  a  new  work  on  the  theol- 
ogy of  Paul  which  will  be  applauded 
in  some  circles  and  damned  in  others 
with  varying  shades  of  each  in  be- 
tween. It  is  a  study  of  Paul's  views 
from  what  the  author  calls  the  "satan- 
ward  view" ;  that  is,  that  the  central 
essence  of  Paul's  thought  (as  well  as 
that  of  Jesus)  revolves  around  the 
hub  of  demonology-eschatology.  Jesus' 
work  was  aimed  at  Satan  not  at  God, 
as  so  many  scholars  have  argued. 
This  involves  taking  demonologj' 
(".  .  .  the  belief  in  a  limited  dualism", 
p.  22)    very  seriously. 

One  can  readily   perceive   that   this 
involves    many    modifications    in    the 
interpretation    of    Paul's    thought     (a 
chart  is   supplied  illustrating  these  on 
pp.   30-31).   This   point   can  be   clari- 
fied   by    the    author's    statement    con- 
cerning the  resurrection. 
The    resurrection,    from    the    God- 
ward   view,   can  no  longer  be   seen 
as   a   victory,   but   must   instead    be 
seen    within    the    light    of    a    trans- 
action  within   the   Godhead,   a   sign 
of  God's  approval  of  or  acceptance 
of    the    work    of    Christ,    already 
completed    in    his    suffering    on    the 
cross.     Indeed,     in    the     Satanward 
point  of  view,  it  is  the  resurrection 
that   is   vital,   central,   the   place    of 
triumph    over    Satan.    But    in    the 
Godward  view  the  emphasis  moves 
from    the    resurrection,     which     is 
merely  a  corroborative  sign,  to  the 
crucifixion  itself,    (p.  27) 

The  author  asserts  that  both  em- 
phases are  present  in  Paul's  thought 
but  that  the  Godward  is  second- 
ary and  derivative,  whereas  the  Sa- 
tanward view  is  primary  and  deter- 
minative. He  then  proceeds  to  inter- 
pret Paul's  life  and  thought  in  the 
succeeding  chapters  {2>-7).  His  final 
chapter  is  entitled,  "A  Study  in  Demy- 
thologizing".  in  which  he  concludes 
that  Rudolf  Bultmann  has  sold  a  "bill 
of   goods"   and   that   ".   .    .   no  demy- 


thologizing  is  necessary"  (p.  149). 
In  fact  the  great  tragedy  of  contem- 
porary theology,  he  feels,  lies  in  its 
failure  to  accept  the  "hub  of  demon- 
ology-eschatology"  (p.  133). 

This  is  not  the  place  for  detailed 
argument  with  the  author,  but  suffice 
it  here  to  say  that  Professor  Kallas 
has  argued  well,  but  in  the  mind  of 
this  reviewer  he  has  definitely  over- 
stated his  case.  There  are  many 
interpretations  of  various  passages 
which  are  at  best  "strained"  (cf.  his 
interpretation  of  Romans  3  :25  ;  I  Cor. 
12;  his  interpretation  of  faith,  sin, 
and  death,  to  cite  only  a  few).  His 
critical  acceptance  of  Ephesians  as 
Pauline  demands  more  than  a  brief 
statement  in  the  preface,  especially 
since  he  makes  so  much  of  Ephesians 
as  one  of  the  last  of  Paul's  letters 
(p.   124). 

There  are  many  technical  errors  in 
this  publication,  indicating  perhaps 
some  hasty  editing  and  proofreading. 
There  are  errors  in  the  transliteration 
of  certain  Greek  letters ;  there  are 
instances  where  entire  lines  are 
omitted  or  there  are  misprints  of 
significant  proportion ;  there  is  a  place 
where  a  Greek  plural  occurs  where 
the  singular  is  evidently  in  order.  In 
addition  to  these  there  is  no  bibliog- 
raphy (except  for  the  footnotes),  nor 
is  there  an  index  of  any  description. 
Either  or  both  of  these  would  have 
made  the  book  more  useful. 

In  spite  of  these  negative  points  the 
book  will  probably  serve  some  useful 
purposes.  The  reader  will  find  some 
interesting  ideas  and  interpretations 
therein,  and  even  if  he  disagrees, 
Professor  Kallas  has  warned  us 
against  too  heavy  a  reliance  on  the 
"Godward  view"  in  the  thought  of 
the  great  apostle. 

— James  M.  Efird 

The  Eschatology  of  Paul  in  the  Light 

flf  Modern   Scholarship.   Henry    M. 

Shires.   Westminster.    1966.   287   pp. 

$6.95. 

"Behind  the  words  of  Paul  lie  cer- 
tain basic  conceptions  and  beliefs  that 


155 


constitute  the  center  of  his  eschatol- 
ogy.  It  is  this  core  that  we  seek  to  dis- 
cover." (p.  21)  In  these'  words  the 
author  sets  forth  his  purpose  in  writ- 
ing this  particular  work.  He  then 
proceeds  to  examine  the  major  cate- 
gories of  Paul's  eschatological  thought 
in  the  succeeding  chapters ;  he  dis- 
cusses such  topics  as  "The  Coming 
of  the  Lord"  (chapter  II),  "Begin- 
ning the  New  Life"  (chapter  VII), 
for  example.  Finally  he  concludes  with 
a  chapter  relating  Paul's  thought  to 
the  present  time  and  presents  four 
central  affirmations  which  mediate 
Paul's  eschatology  to  the  modern 
world.  These  are : 

1.  History    is    a    primary    medium    of 

God's  activity  and  revelation. 

2.  Christians    are    directly    related    to 

the    future    as    well    as    the    past 
through   hope    and   judgment. 

3.  The    Christian    life    is    marked    by 

paradox    and    apparent    logical    in- 
consistency. 

4.  God's    supreme   gift   to   all    is   life. 
(Cf.  pp.  222-232) 

There  are  numerous  questions  which 
arose  in  the  mind  of  this  reviewer 
during  his  reading  of  this  work,  many 
of  which  were  never  really  answered. 
For  example,  it  is  very  unclear  just 
what  the  author  regards  as  the  com- 
ing age"  in  the  mind  of  Paul  (cf.  p. 
229).  It  is  also  a  debatable  point  as 
to  whether  the  apocalyptic  element  in 
Paul's  thought  can  be  played  down 
as  much  as  the  author  would  seem 
to  suggest.  "But  it  is  not  thereby  to 
be  assumed  that  Paul  regards  these 
pictures  [apocalyptic  imagery  in  I 
Thes.  4:13-18]  as  literally  true.  In 
fact,  it  is  most  unlikely  that  he  ever 
did  so."  (p.  218)  Really?  It  is  also 
questionable  whether  Paul  divides  his- 
tory into  five  ages  (p.  216)  or  that 
election  in  Paul  is  "to  salvation"  (p. 
122).  There  are  many  other  points 
which  could  be  raised,  but  these  will 
suffice  to  show  something  of  the 
author's   viewpoint. 

The  overall  value  of  the  work 
would    have    been    greatly     enhanced 


if  the  footnotes  had  been  placed  at 
the  bottom  of  each  page  rather  than 
at  the  back  of  the  book  (as  is  so  popu- 
lar today).  There  is  a  very  good 
bibliography  included,  which  is  prob- 
ably the  most  valuable  part  of  the 
book,  as  well  as  several  indexes 
which  will  prove  helpful  to  those 
using  this  work. 

— James    M.    Efird 

Saint  Francis  of  Assisi.  Omer  Engle- 
bert.  (Translated  by  Eve  Marie 
Cooper).  Franciscan  Herald  Press. 
1965.  xii  +  616  pp.  $8.50. 
This  is  a  book  to  make  one's  heart 
leap.  As  a  biography,  its  soundness 
and  charm  are  well  known.  The  nar- 
rative has  delightful  movement  ac- 
celerated by  copious  extracts  from  the 
sources,  both  those  more  critical  and 
ones  less  so.  In  its  present  form  the 
liveliness  of  the  basic  account  has 
added  to  it  the  updating  of  notes  to- 
gether with  a  technical  foreword,  re- 
search guide,  and  invaluable  appen- 
dices. The  larger  part  of  the  foreword 
and  guide  to  researchers  on  St. 
Francis  from  1939  to  1963,  as  well  as 
most  of  the  appendices  I-VII,  are  by 
Raphael  Brown  of  the  Library  of 
Congress,  assisted  by  Ignatius  Brady, 
O.F.M.  They  are  models  of  dis- 
criminating comprehensiveness  and 
critical  acumen.  The  solidity,  inge- 
nuity and  downright  common-sense 
keying  in  of  sources  and  secondary 
literature  of  every  description  pro- 
vide one  with  an  unprecedented  re- 
search tool  and  a  warm  feeling  of 
admiring  appreciation.  About  every 
conceivable  ramification  of  critical 
sources  both  old  and  new,  and  vir- 
tually all  topical  aspects  of  Francis- 
can studies  are  listed  and  briefly  an- 
notated. The  appendices  alone  com- 
promise over  one-third  of  the  book. 
The  translation  is  reliable  and  idio- 
matically flowing.  The  present  com- 
mentator bows  in  grateful  salute  to  a 
magnificent  achievement.  To  say  that 
the  work  is  indispensable  is  an  under- 
statement. 

— Ray    C.    Retry 


156 


Style  and  Content  in  Christian  Art. 
Jane  Dillenberger.  Abingdon.  1965. 
239  pp.  +  82  plates.  $2.95  (Paper- 
back). 

This  review  is  particularly  appro- 
priate for  two  groups  involved  in  this 
journal :  namely,  well-trained  pas- 
tors and  intelligent  laymen.  The  title 
is  honest,  the  approach  logical  and 
effective.  The  author  knows  what  she 
is  doing,  both  artistically  and  theo- 
logically. Often  grubby  matters  like 
iconography,  form,  composition  and 
meaning  in  works  of  art  are  clearly 
and  interestingly  handled  in  the  sec- 
tion called  "Looking  at  Paintings". 
It  is  a  model  of  common-sense  lucid- 
ity. The  eras  of  early  Christian  and 
Byzantine,  as  well  as  Medieval  and 
Renaissance  art  are  assessed  histori- 
cally and  with  sensitive  insight.  The 
discussion  comes  down  through  the 
sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries  in 
Italy  through  Rembrandt  and  into  the 
twentieth  century.  In  some  ways  the 
last  part  is  unduly  abbreviated.  The 
present  reviewer  would  have  been 
grateful  for  more  stress  on  the  crea- 
tive as  well  as  the  less  edifying 
aspects  of  modern  art.  Having  been 
engaged,  however,  in  a  wide-ranging 
discussion  with  discriminating  laymen 
in  a  church  school,  he  is  appreciative- 
ly aware  of  the  many  choice  guide 
lines  woven  into  the  section  on  con- 
temporary   art. 

The  text  treatment  of  Bruegel, 
Giotto,  El  Greco,  Michelangelo,  Tin- 
toretto and  Rembrandt,  for  example, 
are  first-rate — as  are  the  illustrative 
plates.  Interpretative  evaluations  of 
the  roles  of  such  twentieth-century 
masters  as  Nolde,  Rouault  and  Matisse 
are  excellent.  Preachers  should  not 
"bone  up"  on  a  book  like  this  and 
then  do  secondary  "handouts"  by  way 
of  an  "illustrated"  lecture.  The  whole 
church  in  groups,  preferably  with  the 
pastor  joining  in  a  systematic  study 
of  plates  in  regard  to  the  text,  should 
engage  in  a  genuine  confrontation 
of  their  whole  past,  present  and  future 
together. 


This  work,  used  together  with 
Nathan,  Art  and  the  Message  of  the 
Church  and  the  Getlein's  Christianity 
in  Modern  Art  would  provide  a  rich 
year-long  study  of  painting,  sculpture 
and  architecture  such  as  every  Chris- 
tian church,  large  and  small,  should 
have.  (See  my  article  in  this  bulletin, 
November,  1963,  pp.  210-16).  As  a 
church  historian  and,  I  hope,  a  prac- 
ticing confessor  in  the  Christian  tradi- 
tion, I  recoil  more  every  day  at  the 
smug  idea  so  long  implanted  in  us ; 
namely,  that  Biblical  texts  and  "pul- 
piteering" are  enough.  The  Bible, 
itself,  is  meaningless  without  pictures 
— the  ones  it  creates  and  the  ones  that 
recreate  its  spirit.  A  little  less  "in- 
spirational" claptrap,  however  "spiri- 
tually" denominated,  and  much  more 
of  "indoctrination"  in  the  true  heri- 
tage of  the  arts  would  help  make  bet- 
ter Christians  of  us  all  for  our  age  of 
searching  contemplation  and  vicarious 
action.  "Preachers",  "pastors",  and 
"teachers"  need  to  collaborate  in 
church  and  school  at  doing  the  kind 
of  thing  this  book  exemplifies.  The 
plates  are  good,  though  there  are  not 
enough  contemporary  ones,  I  fear. 
The  appendix  on  "Buying  Art  Books" 
is  very  useful,  though  necessarily  con- 
tracted. So  is  the  index. 

— Ray   C.   Petry 

Contemporary  Continental  Theolo- 
gians. Paul  Schilling,  Abingdon, 
1966.  277  pp.  $5.00. 

In  this  excellent  book  Professor 
Schilling  of  Boston  University  School 
of  Theology  introduces  the  reader  to 
some  leading  representatives  of  con- 
temporary continental  theology.  The 
four  parts  of  the  study  deal  respec- 
tively with  Protestant,  Catholic,  and 
Eastern  Orthodox  thinkers,  and 
finally,  in  summary  fashion,  with 
"Current  Movements  in  Perspective". 
The  section  on  Protestantism  is  sub- 
divided into  discussion  of  "Theologies 
of  the  Word  of  God"  (Barthian 
types),  the  "Theologies  of  Existence" 
(Bultmann  and  associates),  and  "Neo- 


157 


Lutheran"  theologies.  (For  the  sake 
of  symmetry  Schilling  might  well 
have  added  a  section  on  such  neo- 
Reformed  theologies  as  that  of  G.  C. 
Berkouwer  of  Amsterdam.)  Each 
theologian  is  presented  objectively  and 
appreciatively  in  a  style  that  is  pleas- 
ing  and   clear. 

The  ecumenical  range  of  this  book 
dramatizes  the  new  situation  in 
modern  Christian  theology,  for  the 
reader  will  discover  that  Roman 
Catholic  and  Greek  Orthodox  theolo- 
gians, by  their  recognition  of  the  final 
authority  of  scripture,  have  become 
dialogical  partners  with  Protestant 
theologians.  Indeed,  the  distinguished 
Jesuit,  Karl  Rahner  appears  to  ad- 
dress himself  in  refreshing  and  ecu- 
menical terms  to  the  hiatus  between 
Earth's  orthodoxy  and  Bultmann's 
existentialism  which  has  too  long 
troubled  Protestant  theologians.  It  is, 
in  a  way,  distressing  to  realize  that 
competence  in  Protestant  theology  can 
be  assured  no  longer  by  merely  keep- 
ing   abreast    of    Protestant    literature. 

Hopefully  to  whet  the  reader's 
appetite,  let  me  offer  some  impressions 
gained  from  this  book :  First,  that 
if  one  knows  Karl  Earth  at  all  well, 
he  will  find  little  new  or  enlighten- 
ing in  Hermann  Diem  and,  to  a  cer- 
tain extent,  in  Joseph  Hromadka ; 
secondly,  that  Gogarten  and  Ebeling, 
able  as  they  are,  evidence  more  than 
anything  else  the  creative  power  of 
Eultmann ;  third,  Gustav  Wingren's 
neo-Lutheranism  suggests  the  idolatry 
of  tradition,  whereas  Edmund  Schlink 
reflects  a  disciplined  respect  for  it ; 
finally,  it  is  evident  that  there  is 
little  in  common  between  existential- 
ist theologies  and  the  Church  theol- 
ogies of  Roman  Catholicism  and 
Greek  Orthodoxy,  so  that  Church- 
oriented  Protestant  theologies,  espe- 
cially those  of  Earth  and  Schlink, 
seem  more  promising  for  ecumenical 
conversation  than  the  others. 

This  work  suffers,  of  course,  limita- 
tions imposed  by  its  concept.  Doubt- 
less many  readers  will  wish  that  cer- 
tain other  theologians  had  been  heard 


from,  perhaps  from  among  the 
younger  set,  such  as  Wolfhart  Pan- 
nenberg  of  Mainz,  Germany.  Those 
who  identify  with  a  school  or  a  theo- 
logian may  feel  that  their  master  has 
been  caricatured  at  points,  if  not 
misunderstood.  I,  for  instance,  can- 
not attach  much  meaning  to  Schil- 
ling's effort  to  contrast  Earth's  an- 
thropology with  that  of  Rahner,  who 
"sees  human  nature  so  permeated 
by  divine  grace  that  there  is  no  such 
thing  as  a  purely  natural  man"  (p. 
273).  I  suffered  a  bit  of  disappointment 
with  the  final  section,  which  is  little 
more  than  a  statement  in  compari- 
son and  contrast.  One  might  well  ask, 
"So  what?"  The  big  question  re- 
mains :  whence  comes  and  whither 
goes  contemporary  theology?  Perhaps 
Schilling  would  leave  that  judgment 
to  the  reader. 

I  am  grateful  to  Professor  Schilling 
for  this  fine  book,  which  is  essential 
to  the  thinking  preacher's  library. 
Perhaps  the  author's  most  distin- 
guishing achievement  is  the  commit- 
ment of  his  thorough  scholarship  in 
the  service  of  honest  objectivity  rather 
than  sectarian  polemics.  You  will  en- 
joy and  profit  from  the  reading  of 
this  book. 

— Robert  T.  Osborn 
Department  of  Religion 

The  Message  and  Its  Messengers. 
Daniel  T.  Niles.  Abingdon.  1966. 
128  pp.  $2.50. 

Even  to  the  many  admirers  of  D.  T. 
Niles,  this  will  come  as  a  very  slim 
book — in  quality  as  well  as  quantity. 
The  author  admits  in  his  Preface  that 
"there  is  no  developing  argument  and 
.  .  .  seemingly  unrelated  themes  are 
dealt  with  in  succession."  But  the 
explanation  that  "the  Christian  Mis- 
sion must  take  into  account  a  whole 
developing  history  and  the  many  con- 
cerns which  that  history  points  up" 
still  does  not  justify  the  disjointed 
thought  and  style.  "The  thrust  of  the 
spoken  word"  (at  the  Methodist  Mis- 
sion Consultation  in  Gatlinburg,  1964) 


158 


unfortunately  turns  out  to  be,  for  the 
most  part,  neither  orderly  Bible  study 
nor  systematic  lectures,  but  rambling, 
anecdotal  homilies. 

D.  T.  Niles  always  has  some  bril- 
liant and  perceptive  things  to  say — 
even  if  (as  he  acknowledges)  he  has 
said  some  of  them  before.  The  chal- 
lenges of  ecumenicity,  the  presence  of 
Christ  even  where  he  is  not  openly 
confessed,  the  temptations  of  "coexis- 
tence" and  "Judaizing"  and  "accommo- 
dation" for  the  sake  of  security,  the 
inclusiveness  of  the  "circle  of  reality" 
with  Christ  at  the  center — these  and 
many  other  perspectives  are  vividly 
presented.  Niles  fits  no  convenient 
category  of  liberal  or  orthodox.  He 
stresses  salvation  of  human  history 
and  the  whole  universe,  not  simply  of 
the  Christian  individual,  yet  declares 
that  "the  doctrine  of  predestination, 
the  doctrine  of  election,  and  the  doc- 
trine of  the  last  judgment  must  be 
held  together"  (p.  31).  He  sharply 
condemns  the  world  structures  of  de- 
nominationalism,  yet  asserts  that  "we 
are  not  allowed  ...  to  change  the 
Church"  (p.  19). 

Those  who  hope  for  a  distillation  of 
D.  T.  Niles'  wisdom  on  "Missions 
Today  and  Tomorrow"  (the  sub- 
title) will  be  disappointed.  Those  who 
are  "panning"  for  scattered  nuggets 
of  Christian  insight,  to  stimulate  their 
own  thinking  or  their  digging  into 
Niles'  other  more  substantial  ore  (eg. 
Upon  the  Earth,  McGraw-Hill,  1962) 
will  find  real  gold — but  perhaps  not 
two  cents'  worth  per  page. 

— Creighton  Lacy 

Planning  for  Protestantism  in  Urban 
America.  Lyle  E.  Schaller.  Abing- 
don. 1965. 

Long-rangC'  planning  as  a  rational 
administrative  process  has  become 
generally  accepted  by  business,  gov- 
ernment, education  and  most  profes- 
sions. Adoption  of  a  formal  planning 
process,  however,  has  only  recently 
been  noted  in  church  circles,  and  then 


primarily  on  the  denominational  level 
rather  than  in  the  local  church.  Thus 
an  easily  read  yet  profoundly  insight- 
ful book  applying  relevant  planning 
principles  to  church  decision-making 
is  more  than  welcome. 

By  training  and  experience  the 
author  is  adequately  prepared  to 
write  in  the  field.  A  professional  city 
planner  with  master's  degrees  in  polit- 
ical science,  American  history  and 
urban  planning,  Mr.  Schaller  entered 
seminary  and  obtained  a  B.D.  from 
Garrett  Theological  Seminary  "with 
distinction".  He  now  serves  as  direc- 
tor of  the  Regional  Church  Planning 
Office  of  Cleveland-Akron,  Ohio,  a 
fourteen-denominational  approach  to 
a  multiple  metropolitan  region. 

A  recent  trend  in  the  planning  pro- 
fession is  the  insistence  that  "plan- 
ning is  for  people"  rather  than  for 
design,  beauty  or  efficiency  alone. 
Schaller  draws  attention  to  new  fac- 
tors in  planning  which  emphasize  this 
person-centered  approach.  Some  theo- 
logical-ethical contributions  have 
been :  an  increased  concern  with  the 
"why"  or  philosophy  of  planning ;  in- 
terest in  the  church's  theological  role 
as  well  as  its  sociological  one ;  a  doc- 
trine of  man  which  clarifies  and  sys- 
tematizes a  planner's  role ;  and  an  in- 
sistence on  the  important  of  values 
and  norms  in  the  decision-making 
process. 

The  author  presents  an  excellent 
historical  review  of  "comity"  and 
other  early  forms  of  interdenomina- 
tional planning,  pointing  out  limita- 
tions of  rigidly  following  set  rules, 
suggesting  instead  a  research-planning 
approach  which  can  be  flexible 
enough  to  recognize  variances  in 
specific  situations. 

Two  major  contributions  of  the 
book  are  the  author's  proposals  (1) 
that  the  "urban  region"  rather  than  a 
state  or  city  be  the  unit  of  study  in 
church  planning  in  spite  of  present 
administrative  boundaries,  and  (2) 
that  the  relevance  of  denominational 
decision-makers  be  recognized  by 
those  engaged  in  planning. 


159 


In  calling  attention  to  dangers  in- 
herent in  the  institutionalization  of 
religion,  the  author  appears  to  be  but 
an  echo  of  the  popular  attack  of  recent 
years  on  the  church  as  an  institution. 
Perhaps  it  is  time  for  an  objective 
author  to  review  the  religious  and 
social  benefits  of  institutions  without 
which  society  could  scarcely  exist. 

Mr.  Schaller  rightfully  stresses  the 
difficulty  of  applying  urban  planning 
principles  to  a  voluntary  institution 
like  the  church.  Yet  when  he  attempts 
to  list  "obvious"  and  "self-evident" 
church  planning  principles,  he  forgets 
this  cautious  attitude.  In  thirteen  out 
of  fourteen  instances  he  fails  to  docu- 
ment his  statements  by  reference  to 
actual  research,  some  of  which  this 
reviewer  knows  runs  contrary  to  the 
proposed  principles.  A  statement  such 
as  "There  is  only  one  effective  way 
to  limit  the  size  of  the  membership 
in  a  local  church" — "sending  out 
colonization  teams"  (134f.)  is  difficult 
to  believe  without  considerable  ex- 
perimental evidence,  none  of  which  is 
given. 

Another  weakness  is  that  illustra- 
tions are  drawn  primarily  from  the 
urban  areas  of  the  Midwest  and  New 
England  states  where  interdenomina- 
tional cooperation  has  received  fairly 
wide  acceptance.  Questions  naturally 
follow  as  one  wonders  if  the^  same 
principles  or  approach  will  apply 
equally  well  in  the  South  or  Far 
West,  whether  rural  areas  or  small 
towns  can  profit  from  the  same 
principles. 

A  thought  provoking  chapter  is  the 
final  one  on  "The  Church  of  Tomor- 
row". Projections  of  current  trends 
are  used  to  substantiate  a  hypotheti- 
cal look  at  the  future  of  the  urban 
church.  Mr.  Schaller  foresees  a  grow- 
ing specialization  within  the  ministry, 
a  rise  of  denominational  control  over 
clergy  and  local  program  as  well  as 
in  church  extension,  and  a  decrease 
in  the  importance  of  church  buildings 
per  se.  These  changes  should  permit 
more  effective  long-range  planning,  he 
claims.    Also    expected    are    improved 


religious  education  for  the  laity  and 
increased  secular  competition  for  our 
expanding  leisure  time. 

Planning  for  Protestantism  in  Urban 
America  has  much  to  offer  the  de- 
nominational administrator,  the  parish 
minister  and  the  thoughtful  layman 
alike.  Certainly  sound  planning  pro- 
cedures are  necessary  in  an  age  of 
rapid  social  change.  There  is  a  dan- 
ger, however,  that  if  a  reader's  con- 
tact with  the  planning  process  is 
limited  to  this  one  volume  "planning" 
might  be  viewed  as  a  defensive  pos- 
ture the  church  assumes  in  the  face  of 
decisions  originating  outside  itself, 
rather  than  a  guide  in  self-determina- 
tion employing  Christian  goals. 

— Daniel  M.  Schores 

Mental  Health  Through  Christian 
Communit\'.  Howard  J.  Clinebell. 
Abingdon."  1965.  300  pp.  $4.75. 

Howard  Clinebell  has  given  us  a 
much  needed  book.  There  continues 
to  be  uncertainty  as  to  how  the  activi- 
ties of  the  individual  local  church 
can  be  enhanced  and  tapped  for  the 
fostering  of  emotional  maturity  and 
religious  understanding.  Often  the 
activities  of  worship,  church  school, 
committee  meetings,  etc.  are  done  as 
matters  of  routine,  without  much 
"depth"  benefit  to  the  participants. 
The  author  here  scrutinizes  the 
Christian  message,  worship,  preach- 
ing, prophetic  ministry,  the  church 
school,  group  life,  church  administra- 
tion, family  life,  pastoral  counseling, 
the  mentally  ill  and  their  families,  and 
minister-layman  collaboration,  always 
trying  to  answer  the  question,  "How 
can  this  area  of  the  life  of  a  church 
make  the  maximum  contribution  to 
the  spiritual  health  and  growth  of 
persons?"  (p.  15)  He  is  searching  for 
a  "person-centered  ministry"  that  will 
foster  "wholeness"  in  local  churches, 
which  "wholeness"  includes  religious 
and  emotional  growth.  The  local 
church  emphasis  of  the  book,  with  its 
specific  recommendations,  constitutes 
its  uniqueness  and  increases  its  merit. 


160 


The  unpleasant  truth,  however,  is 
that  one  cannot  simply  read  this  book 
and  then  do  what  Clinebell  is  sug- 
gesting unless  as  a  minister  or  layman 
one  possesses  competence  in  under- 
standing people  at  very  basic  levels, 
psychologically  and  religiously.  Many 
of  our  church  leaders,  both  clergy  and 
laity,  are  lacking  in  such  understand- 
ing. Adequacy  in  the  understanding  of 
people  at  these  basic  levels  comes  only 
with  intense  struggle.  If  a  church 
wants  this  kind  of  wholeness,  it  must 
have  as  its  leaders  people  who  have 
wrestled  with  psychological  and  exis- 
tential aspects  of  being  human. 
Regretfully  we  have  not  done  what 
we  might  have  done  to  bring  to  the 
center  of  our  churches  the  knowledge 
and  grace  which  can  be  received  when 
one  struggles  to  understand  oneself 
and  others. 

In  reflecting  upon  the  leadership 
requirements  for  such  a  "person-cen- 
tered ministry"  and  the  difficulties  in- 
volved, Qinebell  writes : 

Optimal  training  for  a  person-cen- 
tered ministry  includes  three 
things :  (a)  Experiences  which 
lead  to  the  understanding  of  one's 
religious  heritage  (through  the 
study  of  Bible,  theology,  and 
church  history),  of  contemporary 
revelation  regarding  man   (through 


the  study  of  developmental  psychol- 
ogy, anthropology,  group  dynamics, 
education,  abnormal  psychology, 
and  so  forth),  and  to  the  ability  to 
meaningfully  correlate  these  two 
bodies  of  truth,  (b)  a  period  of 
clinical  pastoral  training,  and  (c), 
opportunities  to  discover  or  resolve 
one's  inner  problems  (through  in- 
dividual or  group  psychotherapy), 
and  to  develop  a  tough,  growing 
faith,    (p.   270) 

Obviously  these  are  high  standards, 
but  are  they  too  high,  considering  the 
enormity  of  the  task?  Clinebell  thinks 
not  (and  I  agree  with  him).  Yet  I 
would  want  to  add  that  an  adequate 
period  of  clinical  pastoral  training  can 
happen  in  a  supervised  parish  expe- 
rience as  well  as  in  a  more  traditional 
hospital  setting,  provided  of  course 
that  the  parish  experience  has  within 
it  the  elements  necessary  for  growth, 
such  as   small   training  groups,   etc. 

This  is  a  programmatic  book  which 
ministers  ought  to  read  and  have 
available  for  reference.  Through  it 
one  can  gain  stimulation  and  perspec- 
tive for  new  growth  experiences  in 
local  churches. 

John  C.  Detwiler 
Resident  Chaplain 
Duke   University 
Medical    Center 


Alumni  in  Missionary  Service 

(NB :  Those  on  furlough  would  enjoy  seeing  friends  and  classmates,  those  on 
the  field  always  welcome  letters ;  where  no  address  is  given  or  furlough 
dates  indicate  change,  use  Methodist  Board  of  Missions,  475  Riverside  Drive, 
New  York,  N.  Y.  10027.) 

Belzer,  Elaine,  '66,  P.  O.  Box  756,  Manila,  Philippines 

Bigham,  William  O.,  '56,  Faculdade  de  Teologia,  Rudge  Ramos,   Sao  Paulo, 

Brazil 
Brose,  Reinhard,  MRE  '58,  Caixa  Postal  93,  Soledade,  R.G.S.,  Brazil 
Burton,  John,  '59,  Box  844,  Yuma,  Arizona 

Clay,  Charles  W.,  '32  (A.B.  '29),  C.P.  1916,  Brasilia,  D.F.,  Brazil 
Garrison,  J.  William,  '52,   (furlough  from  Brazil  1966-67) 
Glass,  Ernest  W.,  '46,    (furlough  from  Southern  Baptist  Mission,   Singapore, 

1966-67) 
Golden,  Wendell  L.,  Sp.  '61,  Gbarnga  Methodist  Mission,  c/o  College  of  West 

Africa,  Monrovia,  Liberia 
Goodwin,  E.  Ray,  '55,  Box  127,  David,  Panama 
Goodwin,  James  W.,  '57,  C.P.  1466,  Belo  Horizonte,  M.  G.,  Brazil 
Hackney,  Edwin,  '55  (A.B.  '52),  c/o  Aldersgate,  Bhupinder  Nagar  Road,  New 

Patiala,  Punjab,  India 
Hanson,  Coriless  V.,  '57,  P.B.  636,  East  Salisbury,  Rhodesia 
Harbin,  A.  Van,  Jr.,  '32,  Kwansei  Gakuin,  Nishinemiya,  Japan 
Haruyama,  Justin  G.,  '61  (furlough  from  Japan  1966,  at  Duke  Divinity  School) 
Hilton,  David,  '64,  Box  46,  Kuantan,  Pahang,  Malaysia 
Hodges,  James,  Th.M.  '65,  A.P.O.  31,  San  Francisco,  California 
Howard,  Robert,  '47,  (furlough  from  Burma  1966-67) 
Huddle,  Paul,  Sp.  '61,  (address  unknown) 

Jones,  Randolph  L.,  Sp.  '59,  72  Prospect  Street,  Wellesley  Hills,  Mass.,  02181 
Judy,  Carl  W.,  '43,  171  II  San  Dong,  Wonju,  Korea 

Lowdermilk,  Max,  '55,  (A.B.  '52)  4  Civil  Lines,  Khanewal,  West  Pakistan 
Megill,  George,  '52  (furlough  from  Brazil  1965-66) 

Northup,  Richard  E.,  '62,  1020  South  Beretania  Street,  Honolulu  14,  Hawaii 
Ogle,  George,  '54  (after  July  1966:  83  Nai  Dong,  Inchon  City,  Korea) 
Peery,  William  P.,  Grad.  1964-6,  Luthergiri,  Rajahmundry  1,  A.P.,  India 
Peterson,  J.  L.,  Jr.,  '61,  B.P.  226,  Lodja,  Republic  of  Congo 
Robinson,  Milton  H.,  '48  (furlough  from  Bolivia  1966-67) 
Seely,  Donald,  '64,  5  Shimo  Shiragane-cho,  Hirosaki-shi,  Aomori-Ken,  Japan 
Sidwell,  George  W.,  Grad.  '61,  I.P.O.  Box  1182,  Seoul,  Korea 
Smith,  Jack  C,  '57,  Box  322,  Kahuku,  Oahu,  Hawaii. 
Spitzkeit,  James  W.,  '55,  Methodist  Mission,  P.  O.  Box  16,  34  Mok  Dong, 

Taejon,  Korea 
Stanford,  James  E.,  '60,  Apartado  448,  Trujillo,  Peru 
Stone,  W.  Denver,  '59,  Box  483,  Singapore 
Swain,  David,  '51,   (A.B.  '48),  116  Aoyama  Minami-cho,  6-chome,  Minato-ku, 

Tokyo,  Japan 
Theis,  Jack,  MRE  '66,  A.P.O.  31,  San  Francisco,  California 
Tucker,  C.  Qyde,  Jr.,  '52,  Methodist  Church,  Casilla  250,  Puntas  Arenas,  Chile 
Young,  Mrs.  F.  L.,  '52,  #10  United  Christian  Hospital,  P.  O.  Gulbarg  Scheme 
#3,  Lahore,  West  Pakistan 


THE 

DUKE 
DIVINITY 
SCHOOL 
REVIEW 


RfiU  8l   m   I'-'' 


Autumn  1966 


Prayer 


Almighty  and  ever  blessed  God,  Ancient  of  Days,  yet  ever  new, 
who  didst  call  Thy  people  of  old  by  many  mighty  acts  of  salvation, 
Thou  didst  so  fashion  Israel  that  always,  when  she  thought  she  had 
reached  the  goal,  she  had  to  take  to  the  road  again,  and  march  toward 
the  future,  singing  always  new  songs  of  expectation. 

And  in  this  latter  day  Thou  hast  called  us  as  heirs  in  Christ  of  the 
unending  way  of  the  pilgrim  people  of  God. 

So  at  this  season  of  ending,  enliven  us  afresh  with  the  promise 
of  new  beginnings,  turn  us  toward  the  future  with  quiet  courage  and 
steadfast  hope. 

We  have  inherited  the  wisdom  of  all  the  ages,  but  we  do  not  yet 
understand  the  truth.  We  are  wise,  but  weary.  We  have  spoiled  our 
sight  in  poring  over  many  books,  while  the  greatest  secrets  of  the 
human  heart  remain  unread  by  us. 

We  acknowledge  our  gratitude  before  Thee  for  all  those  students 
this  year  and  every  year  committed  to  our  care.  We  pray  Thee  to  raise 
up  in  these  days  from  among  them  an  increasing  number  of  godly 
men,  filled  with  the  old  prophetic  fire  and  with  apostolic  zeal,  to  bless 
Thy  people  and  edify  and  revive  Thy  Church. 

We  praise  Thee  for  the  goodly  fellowship  we  here  enjoy.  For- 
give us  if  we  have  been  harsher  in  criticizing  and  judging  our  col- 
leagues than  in  judging  ourselves.  And  save  us  again,  as  Thou  hast 
saved  us  in  the  past,  by  enabling  us  to  see  in  each  other  a  brother 
for  whom  Christ  also  died — we  are  all  of  us  frail  vessels  in  constant 
need  of  his  grace. 

Comfort  us  today  by  the  assurance,  that  wherever  our  paths  may 
lead,  neither  the  ravages  of  time  nor  the  separation  of  distance  can 
break  the  tie  that  binds  us  together  in  Christ.  He  dwells  in  us  and  we 
in  him,  and  nothing  can  separate  us  from  his  love. 

And  to  Thee,  O  God,  be  the  glory. 

Amen. 

— Hugh   Anderson 

Delivered  at  the  final  Divinity  School  faculty  meeting  of  the  1965-66  academic 
year. 


THE 

DUKE 
DIVINTY 
SCHOOL 
REVIEW 


Volume  31  Autumn  1966  Number  3 


Contents 


Prayer,  hy  Hugh  Anderson Inside  Cover 

A  Protestant  View  of  Vatican  Council  II  in  Retrospect 163 

by  Robert  E.  Cushman 

John    Wesley's    First    Marriage 175 

by  Frank  Baker 

What  We  Expect  from  Young  Ministers 189 

by  Paid  Hardin,  HI 

The  Eclipse  of  God  and  the  Vocation  of  Godliness 193 

by  Robert  E.  Cushman 

Anxiety,  Courage  and  Truth 204 

by  William  H.  Poteat 

The  Dean's  Discourse 213 

by  Robert  E.  Cushman 

Focus  on  Faculty 215 

by  D.  Moody  Smith,  Jr. 

Looks  at  Books 217 


Published  three  times  a  year   (Winter,  Spring,  Autumn) 
by  The  Divinity  School  of  Duke  University 


Postage  paid  at  Durham,  North  Carolina 


A  Protestant  View  of  Vatican 
Council  II  in  Retrospect 

Robert  E,  Cushman 

The  II  Vatican  Council  is  now  an  event  of  the  past.  As  I  stood 
with  perhaps  eighty  other  observers  before  the  massive  facade  of 
St.  Peter's  Basilica  on  the  last  great  day  of  splendid  ceremonial,  the 
8th  day  of  December,  1965,  I  was  deeply  conscious  of  high  privilege. 
So  were  my  colleagues  beside  me.  We  had  been  witnesses  and  partici- 
pants in  one  of  the  epoch-making  events  of  modern  church  history. 
The  Council  had  begun  under  the  inspired  leadership  of  the  aged 
and  beloved  Pope,  John  XXIII.  It  was  my  own  good  fortune  to  be- 
gin observership  in  the  2nd  session  of  1963  and  to  return  to  the  third 
and  fourth,  or  final,  session  of  1965.  Close,  even  intimate  were  the 
associations  and  friendships  that  had  been  formed,  not  only  with  fel- 
low observers  but  with  our  hosts,  the  Roman  Catholic  brethren.  The 
unfailing  courtesies  and  consideration  shown  to  the  observers  by  the 
staff  of  the  Secretariat  for  the  Promotion  of  Christian  Unity,  under 
the  presidency  of  Augustine  Cardinal  Bea  and  the  executive  direction 
of  Bishop  J.  Willebrands,  will  remain  a  lifetime  of  pleasant  heart- 
warming memory. 

How  shall  we  forget  the  many  vivid  hours  spent  in  travels,  con- 
versation and  dining  together?  Together  we  shared  the  hospitality 
of  monasteries  and  their  monastic  brotherhood.  Ancient  precedents 
were  set  aside,  and  our  wives  accompanied  us.  They  dined  at  tables 
in  refectories  where  women  had  never  set  foot.  It  was  so  at  the 
Franciscan  Monastery  of  Assisi,  at  Subiaco,  at  Montecassino,  at 
Florence,  and  most  memorable  of  all,  at  Casa  Mari,  a  Cistercian 
Abbey  to  the  south  of  Rome,  where  we  were  feasted  and  serenaded 
by  a  most  engaging  band  of  young  monks — for  all  the  world  reminis- 
cent of  my  own  seminary  students. 

But  space  fails  me.  It  is  only  to  be  said  that,  as  the  observers 
returned  session  after  session,  the  friendships  and  interchange  with 
their  Catholic  hosts  became  warm,  vital  and  ever  more  fruitful.  In 
the  final  discussions  of  the  fourth  session,  we  were  marvelously  en- 
gaged with  emancipation  of  mind  and  spirit  in  candid  discussion  in 


164 

which  CathoHcs  often  held  variant  views  among  themselves,  Meth- 
odists sided  with  Orthodox  against  Calvinists,  and  Lutherans  were 
quite  as  likely  to  gainsay  an  Anglican  as  they  were  a  Roman.  In 
the  closing  session  of  the  Council  we  were  really  "mixing  it  up" 
with  candor  and  unembarrassed  good  will  that  was  the  fruit  of  mutual 
trust  and  personal  understanding  nurtured  by  prolonged  association. 

So,  at  the  Council's  closing,  December  8,  1965,  it  seemed  to  us 
observers,  and  I  believe  to  most  Council  Fathers,  that  John  XXIII's 
courageous  risk  in  inviting  non-Catholic  observers  had  paid  off.  Quite 
apart  from  the  indirect  influence  on  Council  debate,  quite  apart  from 
formal  and  informal  conversations  with  committees  of  Catholic 
bishops  interested  in  observer  judgment  and  opinion,  quite  apart 
also  from  actual  if  indirect  contribution  to  the  shape  and  emphasis 
of  some  conciliar  documents  of  first  importance,  the  presence  of  the 
observers  had  created  a  new  ecumenical  reality.  It  was  the  reality  of 
living  personal  exchange,  abiding  friendships  and  the  heartening  ex- 
perience of  Christian  fellowship  that  had  grown  to  ripeness  over  and 
above  acknowledged  doctrinal  differences.  It  was  fellowship  that  as- 
serted its  reality,  vouched  for  itself  and  for  its  own  possibility  despite 
ancient  misunderstandings  and  predisposing  suspicions  and  hostilities. 
These  things,  bred  of  a  long  past,  were  somewhat  transcended.  They 
were  transcended  in  being  together,  in  worship  at  St.  Peter's,  in  de- 
bate, in  informal  gatherings,  in  the  sheer  momentum  of  a  common  con- 
cern for  the  truth  of  Christ  and  the  advancement  of  his  Kingdom 
in  a  secular  world,  and  perhaps  above  all,  in  common  prayer.  In  the  | 
II  Vatican  Council,  Catholics  and  non-Catholics  learned  that  they 
could  pray  together,  indeed,  that  they  could  hardly  avoid  praying 
together  because  it  had  become  almost  embarrassingly  plain  that  they 
owned  a  common  Lord.  ! 

So,  the  self-conscious  approach  of  the  first  session  of  the  Council,  j 
the  earlier  rather  circumspect  attention  to  protocol  and  nicety,  gave  \ 
way  in  the  later  sessions  to  the  openness  which  had  come  to  be  the  j 
new  spirit  of  the  Council  itself.  Whereas  the  observers  were  known  ^ 
at  first  as  the  "separated  brethren,"  it  is  quite  important  to  note  that  j 
Pope  Paul  VI,  in  his  last  and  farewell  audience,  with  the  observers  j 
addressed  them  as  "Brothers,  brothers  and  friends  in  Christ." 

So  it  came  about  in  those  prolonged  and  sustained  interrelation-  j 
ships  of  Christian  with  Christian,  of  man  with  man,  in  the  Council  i 
days  that  the  question  before  us  was  and  remains  how  to  grasp  our  : 
divinely-given  unity  in  Christ  so  as  to  overcome  our  actual  historical  j 


r  165 

disunity.  Too  long  it  has  been  a  disunity  in  which  Christians  have 
been  not  only  content  but  stubbornly  resolved  to  live.  For  many  years, 
very  many  I  suppose,  we  shall  be  occupied  with  "the  nature  of  the 
unity  we  seek." 

Christians  will  be  probing  this  question.  But  there  are  one  or  two 
things  in  particular  to  note:  First,  the  II  Vatican  Council  actually 
marks  a  radical  change  of  course  in  world  Catholicism.  Present-day 
Catholicism  not  only  now  seeks  but  has  come  to  acknowledge  at  least 
in  foretaste,  not  simply  the  possibility,  but  the  actuality  of  Christian 
community  above  and  beyond  ancient  ecclesiastical  divisions  and 
long  intrenched  devisive  suspicion  and  hostility. 

Secondly,  with  the  historic  service  of  common  prayer  held  in  the 
sanctuary  of  St.  Paul's  without  the  walls  December  4,  1965,  the  high- 
est possible  official  authorization  was  given  to  the  practice  of  common 
worship  short  of  sacramental  communion.  Thus  was  implemented 
by  papal  action  and  precedent  the  permissive  legislation  of  the  Coun- 
cil's decree  On  Ecumenism.  Over  obstacles  and  obstruction,  opposi- 
tion and  maneuver,  this  decree  eventually  passed.  In  peril  and  often 
in  doubt  as  to  its  outcome,  it  was  finally  adopted  to  the  profound 
relief  of  the  observers  and  the  deep  satisfaction  of  Cardinal  Bea  and 
his  staff  in  the  third  session  of  the  Council  in  1964.  With  the  service 
of  common  prayer  at  St.  Paul's  December  4,  1965  (at  which  I  was 
privileged  to  be  present),  the  "word"  of  De  Oecumenismo  "was 
made  flesh"  by  the  Pope  himself. 

So,  John  XXIII's  revolution  of  openness  has  in  this  respect  pre- 
vailed. It  has  prevailed  in  others,  such  as  religious  liberty,  the  "col- 
legiality"  of  the  bishops,  the  reconstruction  of  the  sacred  liturgy,  the 
Constitution  on  the  Church,  the  enlarged  place  and  responsibility 
of  the  laity,  and  many  others.  But  my  concern  here  is  to  mark  the 
revolution  of  openness  which  now  replaces  the  withdrawal  and  intro- 
version that,  on  the  whole,  characterized  post-Tridentine  Catholicism 
in  theory,  spirit  and  practice  until  these  recent  days. 

A  few  weeks  past  a  friend  sent  a  clipping  from  Holyoke,  Massa- 
chusetts. The  headline  read:  "Over  2,000  attend  historic  joint  re- 
ligious services  here  as  Christian  Unity  Week  begins."  The  article 
states:  "Over  2,000  people  filled  Second  Congregational  Church 
Tuesday  night  for  the  first  of  two  joint  ecumenical  services  .... 
Several  hundred  residents  were  turned  away  when  all  available  room 
in  the  church  building  had  been  filled.  Walls  were  lined  three-deep 
with  people,  and  doorways,  platforms,  and  the  pastor's  study  were 


166 

crowded  with  the  overflow  crowd  ....  Msgr.  James  J.  Fitzgibbons, 
Pastor  of  the  Sacred  Heart  Church,  welcomed  the  large  congregation 
....  and  invited  the  faithful  to  come  to  a  similar  service  at  Sacred 
Heart  on  January  25. 

"The  Rev.  F.  B.  Carr  of  Grace  Congregational  Church  delivered 
the  homily.  Rev.  James  J.  Anilosky  of  the  First  Presbyterian  Church 
offered  prayers;  confession  of  faith  (probably  the  Apostle's  Creed) 
was  led  by  Rev.  Donald  H.  Gustafson  of  the  First  Methodist  Church. 
The  Old  Testament  lesson  was  read  by  Fr.  John  Kelly  of  Holy 
Family  Parish ;  the  New  Testament  lesson  was  read  by  Fr.  John 
Vaughn  of  Sacred  Heart  Parish."  And  it  goes  on :  the  Litany  by  an 
Episcopal  rector ;  intercession,  Lord's  Prayer  and  blessing  by  the 
Baptist  minister. 

A  friend  who  attended  the  service  was  all  but  stunned  by  the 
experience.  He  is  an  old-time  Protestant  in  a  rather  Catholic  city. 
Nothing  like  this  had  been  heard  of !  He  called  it  a  "miracle."  Well, 
this  miracle  has  been  happening.  It  is  happening  elsewhere.  I  well 
remember  my  amazement  when,  with  the  late  Bishop  Ferdinand  Sigg 
of  Zurich,  of  noble  memory,  I  attended  such  a  service  at  the  University 
of  Montreal  when  the  justly  celebrated  fimile  Cardinal  Leger  was 
host  to  the  Faith  and  Order  Conference  of  1963.  As  this  truly  ecu- 
menical service  of  common  praise  and  prayer  proceeded,  our  astonish- 
ment deepened.  Since  then,  I  have  seen  Cardinal  Leger 's  informed 
and  consecrated  leadership  in  the  Council  at  Rome.  But  while  what 
happened  at  Montreal  is  truly  historic,  it  is  now  to  be  remembered 
as  but  a  prophecy  of  what  was  to  come.  Yet  without  the  H  Vatican 
Council  it  could  not  have  come,  certainly  it  could  not  have  survived. 

The  Catholics,  one  might  say,  have  joined  the  common  Christian 
World.  They  will  give  it  leadership.  One  can  expect  the  pace  of  this 
leadership  to  accelerate.  We  may  even  see  shortly  a  revitalization  of 
the  old-line  Protestant  churches  in  America.  They  will  need  a  re- 
newal of  their  witness  and  their  life.  If  they  have  a  distinctive  mes- 
sage, it  will  behoove  them  to  possess  it,  to  know  it  and  to  publish  it. 
The  well-worn  ruts  and  the  time-honored  routines  will  hardly  suf- 
fice in  the  days  ahead,  for  former  times  have  passed  away. 

And,  therefore,  if  you  ask  me  what  is  the  consequence  and  out- 
come of  the  II  Vatican  Council,  I  would  point  first  of  all  to  the  Hol- 
yoke  service  of  Christian  unity.  It  symbolizes  and  prophesies,  I  be- 
lieve, a  new  day  in  world  Christianity.  It  signifies,  at  least  in  its  be- 
ginnings, the  passing  away  of  the  post-Reformation  and   counter- 


167 

Reformation  eras.  The  most  palpable  effect  of  the  II  Vatican  Council 
is  a  new  readiness  and  openness  for  Christian  community  and  com- 
mon Christian  effort,  on  the  part  of  world  Catholicism.  Just  as  Meth- 
odists or  Lutherans  do  not  expect  forthwith  to  become  Anglicans  by 
having  fellowship  or  common  worship,  so  neither  a  Methodist  nor 
a  Roman  Catholic  shall  cease  to  be  such  by  mutually  acknowledging 
the  common  Christian  commitment  of  the  other  and  sharing  with 
him  in  the  measure  that  doctrine  and  conscience  allow. 

Accordingly,  in  this  domain  we  are,  I  think,  about  to  live  in  a 
different  Christian  world.  It  will  not  be  one  of  complete  unity  in  the 
foreseeable  future,  but,  it  will  be  increasingly  a  world  of  enlarged 
understanding,  enhanced  good  will,  fellowship  and  common  efforts 
and  purpose.  Its  effect  on  Protestantism  will,  I  believe,  be  among 
other  things,  renewed  theological  awakening  and  renewed  vitality 
of  doctrinal  discussion  and  inquiry.  This  will  have  its  effect  both 
upon  the  conception  of  ecclesiastical  and  institutional  structures  and 
upon  worship  or  liturgical  practice.  It  will  also  have  an  effect  upon 
the  social  concern  and  action  of  the  churches  in  the  world  and  a 
deepening  of  their  consciousness  of  responsibility  for  the  world. 

II 

If,  with  this  background,  we  ask  more  narrowly  what  is  the  im- 
port of  the  II  Vatican  Council  for  Protestant  Christianity,  for  the 
several  Protestant  communions,  my  first  answer  would  be  this: 
Protestant  Christians  of  all  denominations  should  mark  well  the  new 
and  unprecedented  openness  of  Catholicism  toward  other  Christian 
communions.  It  is  of  utmost  importance  to  recognize  that  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  has  officially  decided  to  enter  into  dialogue  with  the 
world :  first  of  all,  with  non-Catholic  Christians ;  secondly,  with 
non-Christian  religions ;  and,  thirdly,  with  the  whole  of  the  modem 
world  in  its  agonies,  defeats  and  triumphs.  This  seems  to  me  to  be 
a  revolution  when  compared  with  the  Catholicism  of  the  First  Vatican 
Council  or  even  with  the  Pontificate  of  Pius  XII.  It  is  a  reversal 
of  the  standpoint  of  censure,  defensiveness  and  withdrawal  that  marked 
the  prevailing  tone  and  temper  of  the  nineteenth-century  official  Cath- 
olic teaching  and  ecclesiological  policy. 

The  recent  journeys  of  Paul  VI  to  India  in  1964,  and  to  New 
York  in  the  fall  of  1965,  his  address  to  the  United  Nations,  his  urgent 
and  deliberate  effort  to  mount  a  peace  offensive  in  the  face  of  the 
Vietnam  crisis  and,  most  recently,  his  encyclical  letter  on  peace  and 


168 

supportive  of  the  United  Nations  (September  19,  1966)  are  indica- 
tions of  the  new  dialogue  with  the  world.  Also  the  Declaration  on  the 
Relations  of  the  Church  to  non-Christian  Religions  (Council  Docu- 
ment, 9,  October  28,  1965)  contains  not  only  the  long  controverted 
Declaration  on  the  Jews  but  also  statements  of  appreciation  for  the 
values  of  non-Christian  religions  through  which  men  (no  longer 
depreciated  as  unbelievers)  seek  to  discover  and  to  relate  themselves 
to  the  Supreme  Being.  "The  Catholic  Church,"  it  declares,  "rejects 
nothing  that  is  true  and  holy  in  these  religions.  She  regards  with 
sincere  reverence  those  ways  of  action  and  of  life,  those  precepts 
and  teachings  which,  though  differing  in  many  aspects  from  the  ones 
she  holds  and  sets  forth,  nonetheless  often  reflect  a  ray  of  the  Truth 
which  enlightens  all  men." 

But,  above  all,  the  dialogue  is  commended  with  respect  to  non- 
Catholic  Christians.  It  is  plain  that  Roman  Catholicism  finds  its 
closest  affinity,  on  doctrinal  and  ecclesiological  grounds,  with 
Eastern  Orthodoxy.  A  central  aim  of  Paul  VI's  trip  to  the  Holy 
Land  in  January,  1964,  was  to  find  the  proper  place  of  meeting  with 
the  spiritual  leaders  of  Orthodoxy.  The  mutual  and  simultaneous 
lifting  of  the  ban  of  excommunication  of  Paul  VI  and  Athenagoras 
of  Istanbul  on  December  7,  1965,  was  at  once  a  fruit  of  the  Palestinian 
journey  and  a  further  important  step  toward  reconciliation  of  East- 
ern and  Latin  Christianity.  The  ban  had  been  mutually  imposed 
about  900  years  ago  in  1054  A.D.  It  was  lifted  by  a  mutual  exchange 
of  letters  on  the  final  day  of  official  business  of  the  Vatican  Council 
in  St.  Peter's  Basilica.  As,  the  next  day,  I  walked  to  the  closing 
ceremonies  with  Bishop  Aimilianos,  representative  of  the  Patriarch 
to  the  Council,  I  was  assured  that  this  was  a  most  important  beginning 
of  a  process  which  could,  in  the  providence  of  God,  lead  to  eventual 
re-establishment  of  communion  between  Eastern  and  Latin  Christian- 
ity. The  way  may  be  long,  but  the  two  ancient  churches  are  presently 
on  the  march  in  the  direction  of  one  another. 

But  what  of  dialogue  with  Protestant  Christians?  Well,  it  has 
begun  already  in  the  four  years  of  Vatican  II.  It  will  be  attended 
by  increasing  occasions  of  common  prayer  or  worship,  short  of  sacra- 
mental inter-communion.  The  signs  of  this  are  numerous.  Since  the 
close  of  the  Council,  reaction  on  the  part  of  conservative  Catholics  has 
been  in  the  press.  But  the  Father  DePauws  cannot  subvert  the  spirit 
and  the  declaration  of  the  II  Vatican  Council.  Catholic  ecumenism 
is  here  to  stay,  at  least  until  it  is  rescinded  by  another  Council.  Un- 


169 

critical  and  excessive  Catholic  enthusiasm  for  the  recent  ecumenical 
emancipation  may  embarrass  constituted  authorities  in  the  Church 
responsible  for  conservation  of  authentic  tradition.  There  is  bound 
to  be  internal  stress,  but  the  new  ecumenical  outreach  has  conciliar 
authorization  and  its  deliberate  advancement  may  be  expected. 

Ill 

Now,  then,  what  are  some  achievements  of  the  II  Vatican  Council 
that  both  make  dialogue  possible  with  Protestant  Christians  and  also 
constitute  some  of  its  important  presuppositions?  What,  in  other 
words,  are  some  of  the  things  affirmed  or  sanctioned  by  the  Council 
which  Protestants  ought  to  bear  in  mind  as  they  contemplate  both 
dialogue  and  closer  associations  with  their  Roman  Catholic  brethren? 
What  are  the  things  they  must  regard  as  altered  and  changing  within 
the  mind  of  Roman  Catholic  Christianity  that,  as  it  seems  to  me, 
markedly  distinguishes  it  from  the  400-year-old  defensive  posture 
of  the  counter-Reformation  era  ?  What  are  Protestants  to  understand 
if  they  are  not  erroneously  to  hold  and  be  guided  by  cliches  and  con- 
sequent animosities  and  suspicions  of  the  past? 

Here  are  a  few  such  changes  and  such  emergent  positions,  official- 
ly adopted  by  the  Council,  that  require  our  notice  if  we  are  not,  like 
Don  Quixote,  to  fight  windmills  or  confound  ancient  hostilities  with 
real  and  important  issues  and  dififerences: 

(1)  In  the  first  place,  we  must  bear  in  mind  that  the  II  Vatican 
Council  was  conceived  and  aimed  and  now  has  succeeded  in  turning 
the  search-light  of  self-criticism  upon  the  ancient  Roman  Church.  I 
do  not  think  we  can  escape  the  fact  that  the  II  Vatican  Council  rep- 
resents the  most  thorough,  searching  and  sustained  self-examination 
to  which  any  branch  of  Christianity  has  subjected  itself  since  the  16th 
Century  Reformation  and  counter-Reformation.  The  18th  Century 
Wesleyan  self-examination  was  long  and  sustained,  but  it  was  neither 
heeded  nor  shared  by  the  Anglican  establishment  and  by  confluence 
of  historical  circumstances  became  a  schism.  This  Roman  self-scrutiny 
and  self-criticism  is  also  marked  by  a  monumental  and  theologically 
informed  intellectual  output  probably  unequalled  in  modern  ecclesias- 
tical history.  Protestants,  in  undertaking  dialogue  with  Catholics  to- 
day and  tomorrow,  must  understand  not  merely  that  some  Catholics 
have  really  done  their  homework,  but  also  that  it  has  been  honestly 
and  remarkably  self-critical. 

(2)  Secondly,   Protestants   should   realize   that   the   II   Vatican 


170 

Council,  again  and  again,  has  adopted  the  principle  that  the  Church 
is  perpetually  in  need  of  self-renewal  and  reformation,  that  the  un- 
faithfulness of  men  clouds  and  obstructs  the  redemptive  mission  of 
Christ  through  his  Church.  Cognate  to  this  was  and  is  the  rejection 
of  what  Archbishop  De  Smedt  of  Belgium  in  the  first  session  of  the 
Council  denominated  "triumphalism"  in  the  Church.  Triumphalism 
is  not  simply  the  disposition  to  pomp  and  vain-glory.  It  is  not  simply 
pride  of  mind  and  ecclesiastical  snobbery  or  complacency.  Basically, 
"triumphalism"  was  deprecated  as  a  tendency  to  identify  the  Church 
on  earth,  the  Church  militant  or  the  embattled  Church,  with  the  King- 
dom of  God,  itself.  In  its  place  a  new  sobriety  is  accepted  about  the 
Church.  It  is  the  "pilgrim  people  of  God."  It  is  the  people  of  mission. 
It  is  the  servant  Church,  not  one  asserting  its  claims  or  affirming  its 
prerogatives  but  one  accepting  anew  its  responsibility  for  service  in 
Christ's  name  to  the  world.  This  is  a  central  acknowledgment  of 
The  Constitution  on  the  Church.  The  II  Vatican  Council  rejects  "tri- 
umphalism." It  is  a  fair  question,  I  think,  whether  American  Protes- 
tantism has  yet  fully  recognized  its  own  need  to  do  so. 

(3)  In  the  third  place,  Protestants  must  recognize  that  a  new 
understanding  of  the  nature  and  role  of  the  Church  has  been  strenu- 
ously debated  and  defined  by  the  Council.  The  Church  is  viewed 
more  nearly  in  Biblical,  Pauline  and  Augustinian  terms.  It  is,  first 
of  all,  "The  People  of  God."  It  is  the  body  of  Christ.  It  is  no  longer 
the  hierarchy.  In  includes  all  believers,  among  whom  the  laity  have 
an  integral  and  indispensable  "apostolate."  Correspondingly,  "cleri- 
calism" has  been  officially  checked  and  disapproved.  The  distinctive 
role  of  the  ordained  clergy  is  reaffirmed  but  always  in  company  with 
the  laity,  who  are  also  servants  of  Christ  in  mission,  word  and  deed. 
The  sacramental  ministry  as  a  distinctive  service  of  bishops  and  priests 
is  affirmed  but  with  the  understanding  that  even  in  sacramental  wor- 
ship the  congregation  and  the  laity  have  an  integral  and  active  part. 

(4)  Fourth,  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  has  been  altered  by  greater 
clarification  of  the  function  of  the  episcopate.  The  absolute  sovereign- 
ty of  the  See  of  Rome,  affirmed  in  the  decrees  of  the  First  Vatican 
Council,  has  in  my  judgment  been  modified  in  practice  and  precedent 
and,  perhaps,  in  constitution.  First,  in  the  "collegiality"  of  all  bishops 
as  (1)  holding  the  highest  order  of  ordination  and  as  (2)  conjointly 
with  the  Pope,  exercising  the  supreme  governing  and  teaching  role 
in  the  Roman  Church.  The  limited  autonomy  of  national  and  regional 
conferences  of  bishops  has  received  formal  authorization.   Provision 


171 

for  a  Synod  of  Bishops,  world-wide  in  composition,  has  been  made 
by  Paul  VI  for  ordinary  and  extraordinary  convocation  and  business. 
Thus,  the  absolute  or  almost  absolute  power  of  the  Roman  See  and, 
more  particularly,  its  administrative  and  adjunctive  arm,  the  Curia, 
has  been,  both  in  principle  and  in  fact,  limited  and  modified.  A  far 
more  pluralistic  world  Catholicism  is  to  be  looked  for  in  the  future, 
even  though  it  will  not  be  attained  without  struggle.  The  monolithic 
absolutism  of  the  first  Vatican  Council  has,  as  I  see  it,  been  breached. 
Finally,  while  the  doctrine  of  Papal  "infallibility"  (adopted  over 
weighty  protest  from  within  its  own  membership  by  the  First  Vatican 
Council)  remains,  I  will  hazard  the  opinion  that  it  has  been  modified 
by  the  Second  Vatican  Council  in  fact  rather  than  in  theory.  This 
seems  indicated  on  two  scores :  first  it  has  been  broadened  to  include 
conciliar  declarations  and,  secondly,  it,  accordingly,  has  been  explicit- 
ly shared  with  ecumenical  councils  such  as  the  Second  Vatican  Coun- 
cil. 

(5)  A  fifth  reality  which  Protestants  must  come  to  understand 
is  a  newly  established  centrality  of  the  Bible  and  of  Biblical  authority 
as  normative  for  the  determination  of  faith  and  practice,  doctrine  and 
worship.  The  mainspring  and  source  of  the  liturgical  reform  and 
renewal  represented  by  the  Council's  Constitution  on  the  Sacred 
Liturgy  adopted  in  1963  is  undoubtedly  a  renewal  of  Biblical  study, 
exegesis,  and  theology  among  Roman  Catholic  theologians  over  the 
past  half  century.  Catholic  Biblical  scholarship  is  rapidly  catching 
up  with  and  overtaking  this  prominent  achievement  of  Protestant 
scholarship.  But  our  interest  centers  in  the  fact  that  the  new  defini- 
tions of  church,  ministry,  worship,  revelation  and  Catholic  ecumen- 
ism (represented  by  several  important  Council  documents)  are  the 
result  of  the  somewhat  recent  vital  thrust  of  Biblical  research  and 
understanding  among  the  generality  of  Catholic  scholars,  theologians 
and  clergy.  It  is  of  extreme  significance  that  in  Schema  XIII,  The 
Church  and  the  Modern  World,  it  is  said  that  the  church  in  its  life 
and  faith  is  always  subject  to  the  judgment  of  the  Gospel.  This  is 
to  acknowledge  the  stone  of  stumbling  which  made  Luther's  break 
with  Rome  inevitable  in  the  unequal  balance  of  forces  of  the  16th 
Century.  The  centrality  of  the  Scripture  is  both  a  cause  and  the  fruit 
of  the  Second  Vatican  Council. 

(6)  Cognate  to  this,  and  in  the  sixth  place,  Protestants  must  study 
carefully  the  long  controverted  and  finely  chiseled  Schema  On  Divine 
Revelation  adopted  almost  at  the  end  of  the  Council  after  four  years 


172 

of  constant  debate,  amendment  and  review.  So  nicely  juxtaposed  are 
the  complementary  authorities  of  Tradition  and  Scripture  that  the 
knowledgeable  modern  Protestant  will  find  very  much  to  commend 
in  the  balance  of  Scripture  with  tradition  that  is  attained.  The  rela- 
tion is  one  of  dialectical  tension,  so  that  the  crude  superiority  of  tra- 
dition over  Scripture,  characteristic  of  counter-Reformation  Catholi- 
cism, is  greatly  modified.  The  position  attained  is,  I  think,  not  far 
removed  from  that  of  many  contemporary  New  Testament  scholars 
of  Protestant  origin. 

Quite  apart  from  what  this  suggests  by  way  of  reconciliation  of 
long-standing  Protestant-Catholic  differences  and  even  hostilities,  it 
must  now  be  recognized  that  the  Second  Vatican  Council  has  quite 
definitely  adopted  a  Biblical  basis  as  fundamental  in  restructuring 
its  life  and  doctrine  as  a  Church.  This  is  official ;  it  is  no  longer  the 
aspiration  of  liberalizing  Catholic  scholars  or  theologians.  It  is,  with 
Vatican  II,  the  acknowledged  position  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church. 
In  September,  1966,  addressing  a  group  of  eminent  Catholic  theolo- 
gians, Paul  VI  stressed  the  Scriptural  foundation  of  Christian  doc- 
trine, reminding  the  assembled  group  of  "the  great  importance  the 
Council  always  attached  to  Sacred  Scripture  in  doctrinal  explana- 
tion   " 

(7)  In  the  seventh  place,  it  is  now  official  policy  and  doctrine  of 
the  Catholic  Church  that  it  participate  in  the  ecumenical  movement 
of  modern  times.  Whatever  uncertainties  attach  to  regional  implemen- 
tation, and  there  are  many,  Catholic  ecumenism  is  policy.  It  is  more 
fully  and  thoroughly  defined  and  avowed  than  presently  exists  among 
many  of  the  churches  of  the  Reformation.  I  mean  to  say  that,  now, 
the  aim  and  effort  toward  Christian  unity  is  a  mandate  upon  all 
Catholics,  not  just  clergy  but  the  whole  of  the  laity  and  as  a  real 
part  of  "the  lay  apostolate."  The  division  and  disunity  of  Christen- 
dom is  declared  contrary  to  the  will  of  Christ  for  his  Church,  and 
while  it  is  affirmed  that  the  Roman  Catholic  is  the  authentic  church 
of  Christ,  it  is  by  no  means  supposed  or  declared  that  the  reunion 
of  Christendom  is  to  be  understood  simply  as  return  to  Rome.  I 
would  venture  to  say  that  in  his  words  to  the  observers  in  the  fall  of 
1964,  the  Pope  plainly  intended  something  else.  The  words  he  used 
were  "recomposition  in  unity"  to  suggest,  I  believe,  a  new  conception 
of  the  nature  and  way  to  the  unity  we  seek. 

And,  finally,  in  this  connection  it  is  of  importance  for  non-Catho- 
lic Christians  to  notice  carefully  a  phrase  which  appears  in  the  Council 


173 

documents.  It  is  the  proposition  that  "the  one  true  religion  subsists 
in  the  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church."  We  should  mark  it  well  that : 
(a)  the  true  Christian  religion  is  not  exhaustively  identified  with  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church  but  subsists  in  it,  and  (b)  that  "The  Catho- 
lic and  Apostolic  Church"  is  not  exhaustively  identified  with  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church.  From  these  seemingly  small  distinctions  an 
unforeseeable  harvest  of  ecumenism  may  grow,  for  what  is  evidently 
allowed  for  is  the  possibility  that  true  Christian  faith  or  religion 
may  "subsist"  in  some  measure  also  in  other  churches  of  Christen- 
dom. And  just  this,  in  fact,  is  what  is  allowed  and  affirmed  in  the 
decree  On  Ecumenism. 

These  distinctions  may  seem  insignificant.  The  phrase  of  Paul 
VI,  "recomposition  in  unity,"  may  give  small  satisfaction  to  those 
impatient  for  immediate  and  unambiguous  solutions  to  long  contro- 
verted issues.  This  is  understandable,  yet  it  should  be  realized  that 
in  the  solemn  context  in  which  the  words  were  uttered,  as  a  direct 
address  to  the  observers  and  by  the  supreme  reigning  authority  of 
the  Roman  Church,  such  words  are  not  to  be  taken  as  casual  but 
as  deliberate  and  finely  chiseled  vehicles,  not  merely  of  ideas  agonizing 
to  be  born,  but  as  usable  instruments  for  the  "easement"  of  eventual 
policy  and  action.  If  I  may  refer  to  my  own  experience,  there  are 
three  things  with  which,  in  the  context  of  discussion  and  deliberation, 
I  became  quite  conscious :  first,  the  profound  sense  of  inescapable 
responsibility  entertained  by  Catholic  officialdom,  and  pre-eminently 
by  the  Pope,  to  be  faithful  to  the  venerable  consensus  of  Catholic 
doctrine ;  secondly,  the  long,  long  look  ahead  and  readiness  to  discover 
vehicles  for  the  future  emerging  in  the  conjunction  of  ancient  truth 
with  present  urgencies.  And,  in  the  third  place,  consonant  with  New- 
man's theory  of  the  development  of  doctrine,  but  added  to  it,  was  a 
remarkable  disposition  to  open  small  "growing  edges"  into  the  future 
with  confidence  in  the  leading  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  find  pathways  into 
larger  truth,  aspired  after,  but  now  not  yet  visible.  Nowhere  is  this 
more  apparent  than  in  the  decree  On  Ecumenism ;  but  it  is  worthy  of 
notice  that  this  perspective,  fostered  and  nurtured  by  Cardinal  Bea  and 
the  staff  of  the  Secretariat  for  the  Promotion  of  Christian  Unity,  was 
not  only  a  presiding  rationale  in  the  formation  of  the  document  but 
gradually  created,  I  believe,  a  pervasive  spirit  of  acceptance  among 
the  Fathers  of  the  Council  that  made  its  adoption  possible. 

There  is  one  other  and  last  matter  to  be  mentioned,  in  the  seventh 
place,  which  Protestant  Christians  should  have  in  mind  as  dialogue 


I 


174 

and  fellowship  between  Catholics  and  Protestants  develop.  Protestants 
should  understand  that,  however  belatedly  in  their  view  it  has  come 
to  pass,  it  is  now  true  that  after  a  most  interesting  and  vigorous 
contest  very  full  of  suspense,  the  Second  Vatican  Council  did  adopt — 
against  the  lag  and  drag  of  centuries  of  contrary  theory  and  prece- 
dent— the  principle  of  religious  freedom  for  both  individuals  and 
communities.  The  dignity  of  man,  according  to  natural  and  revealed 
law,  supports  the  right  of  conscientious  worship.  Men  can  be  con- 
strained neither  by  ecclesiastical  nor  political  power  to  assent  or  dis- 
sent in  matters  religious.  The  inviolability  of  conscience  and  man's 
vocation  before  God  is  affirmed  against  all  coercion  whatsoever. 

The  importance  of  this  reaffirmation  of  historic  Reformation  and, 
one  may  say  Puritan  principles,  is  great  in  this  period  of  the  Twen- 
tieth Century.  In  and  with  it  is  contained  a  most  wholesome  correc- 
tive against  forces  in  our  time  that  have  mocked  and  traduced  the 
essential  dignity  of  man.  Man's  dignity  is  once  again  grounded  upon 
his  responsibility  and  calling  under  God. 

But  over  and  beyond  this  laudable  emphasis  is  the  implied  accep- 
tance of  the  disestablishment  of  religion  as  a  protectorate  of  the  state. 
The  medieval  doctrine  of  the  "two  swords"  which  made  the  state  the 
servant  of  the  Church  is  silently  relinquished.  But  it  is  also  relin- 
quished in  principle,  in  the  explicit  affirmation  that  religion,  and  Chris- 
tian faith  in  particular,  are  matters  transcending  the  power  of  man  or 
institutions  to  establish  or  dissolve.  Religious  liberty  is  a  corollary  of 
the  basic  Christian  tenet  that  religious  faith  is  a  transaction  between 
God  and  the  individual  person,  that  it  cannot  be  enforced  or  coerced, 
and  that  the  truth  of  the  Christian  religion  must  convict  and  persuade 
by  the  transparency  of  its  own  light.  Accordingly,  the  primary  work 
of  the  Church  and  its  ministry  and  laity  is  witness,  mission,  proclama- 
tion in  word  and  deed.  One  can  reasonably  say  that,  with  this  stand- 
point, Roman  Catholicism  and  Evangelical  Christianity  are  again 
standing  more  nearly  upon  the  same  New  Testament  and  Apostolic 
ground. 

These,  then,  are  some  of  the  things  that  are  results  of  the  Second 
Vatican  Council.  They  have  obvious  implication  for  all  Protestant 
or  non-Roman  Catholic  Christians.  Collectively,  they  compose  an 
astonishingly  different  and  unprecedented  standpoint  from  which 
quite  unexpected  but  promising  conversations  and  koinonia  between 
Catholics  and  non-Catholics  may  unfold  in  the  years  ahead.  If  so,  Deo 
gratias :  God  be  thanked ! 


John  Wesley's  First  Marriage 

Frank  Baker 

Professor  of  English  Church  History 

To  those  familiar  with  the  story  of  John  Wesley's  frustrated 
courtship  of  Grace  Murray  and  his  rebound  into  the  jealous  arms 
of  Mrs.  Mary  Vazeille  the  title  may  sound  a  trifle  odd.  "But  Wesley 
was  married  only  once,"  they  will  say.  "What  is  the  man  talking 
about?  Surely  not  about  Grace  Murray!"  That,  however,  is  the 
case.  The  fascinating  book  which  Professor  Augustin  Leger  entitled 
"Wesley's  Last  Love"  could  more  correctly  have  been  entitled  "Wes- 
ley's First  Marriage."  In  this  lecture  I  am  not  attempting  to  psycho- 
analyze either  Grace  Murray  or  John  Wesley,  nor  even  to  recount 
in  minute  detail  the  tortured  twistings  of  their  strange  love  affair. 
Rather  I  am  trying  to  throw  light  on  the  forgotten  marriage  laws  of 
Wesley's  England,  and  the  way  in  which  he  became  entangled  in 
them.  It  is  a  study  of  Wesley's  first  marriage  as  a  legal  contract 
rather  than  as  a  personal  relationship. 

An  understanding  of  Wesley's  relationships  with  Grace  Murray 
and  his  rival  John  Bennet  is  impossible  without  ridding  ourselves 
imaginatively  not  only  of  twentieth  century  social  customs  but  of 
twentieth  century  laws.  We  have  become  accustomed  to  a  legal  system 
which  makes  divorce  easier  and  marriage  harder  than  they  were 
during  the  first  half  century  of  Wesley's  life.  The  line  of  demarcation 
in  English  marriage  law  is  1754,  when  Lord  Hardwicke's  Marriage 
Act  came  into  operation.  This  "introduced  for  the  first  time  the  prin- 
ciple that  marriage  was  a  civil  contract  in  which  the  State  as  well 
as  the  Church  was  concerned. "'^  Previously  marriage  law  was  an 
ecclesiastical  jungle  into  which  only  the  bravest  dare  venture  at  peril 
of  their  sanity  as  well  as  their  fortune. 
H  ■  The  curious  may  follow  in  the  pages  of  that  great  ecclesiastical 
jurist — and  Wesley's  opponent — Bishop  Edmund  Gibson,  how  in 
1541  King  Henry  VIII  secured  the  legalization  of  marriages  cele- 
brated in  the  Church  of  England  and  consummated,  even  though 
there  existed  a  previous  contract  of  marriage,  so  long  as  this  had 

(The  annual  Faculty  Lecture  given  in  York  Chapel  on  May  11,   1966.) 
1.  English  Historical  Documents,  Volume  X,  1714-1783,  ed.  D.  B.  Horn  and 
Mary  Ransome,  London,  1957,  pp.  242-7. 


176 

not  been  consummated.  This  was  a  minor  aspect  of  the  severage  of  the 
umbilical  cord  which  joined  the  Church  of  England  to  mother  Rome, 
though  Roman  law  remained  the  happy  hunting  ground  for  legal 
precedents.  Gibson's  Codex  Juris  Ecclesiastici  Anglicani  also  shows 
how  seven  years  later  this  Act  was  repealed  in  order  to  safeguard 
such  unconsummated  contracts  of  marriage,  or  "spousals."  "The 
king's  Ecclesiastical  Judge"  was  empowered  to  try  all  contested  cases, 
and  where  the  existence  of  a  contract  was  proved  "to  give  sentence 
for  matrimony,  commanding  solemnization,  cohabitation,  consumma- 
tion and  transaction  [i.e.  treatment],  as  becometh  man  and  wife  to 
have."  Refusal  to  comply  with  his  order  was  punishable  by  excom- 
munication and  permanent  imprisonment.  A  further  Act  of  1603 
made  bigamy  a  capital  felony,  and  insisted  that  private  spousals  or 
marriage  contracts  were  true  marriages,  even  though  they  did  not 
have  the  full  weight  of  marriages  duly  solemnized  in  the  Church.^  Such 
private  marriages  remained  legal  and  binding  until  1754. 

It  is  necessary  to  distinguish  between  a  private  promise  of  mar- 
riage and  the  private  marriage  itself.  Writing  of  marriage  contracts 
in  his  Ecclesiastical  Law,  Richard  Burn  put  the  matter  thus :  "Spou- 
sals de  fiituro  are  a  mutual  promise  or  covenant  of  marriage  to  be  had 
afterwards ;  as  when  the  man  saith  to  the  woman,  I  will  take  thee  to  my 
wife,  and  she  then  answereth,  I  will  take  thee  to  my  husband.  Spou- 
sals de  praesenti  are  a  mutual  promise  or  contract  of  present  matri- 
mony ;  as  when  the  man  doth  say  to  the  woman,  I  do  take  thee  to  my 
wife,  and  she  then  answereth,  I  do  take  thee  to  my  husband."^ 

Like  Gibson,  Burn  urged  that  contracts  of  marriage  ought  to  be 
undertaken  before  witnesses  and  in  the  presence  of  a  congregation. 
Nevertheless,  though  ecclesiastically  irregular,  a  marriage  contract 
made  in  words  of  the  present  tense  was  until  1754  a  legal  marriage, 
with  or  without  a  written  agreement,  with  or  without  witnesses, 
with  or  without  a  religious  ceremony,  with  or  without  consum- 
mation. Even  though  it  was  somewhat  simpler  to  nullify  a  mar- 
riage unaccompanied  by  these  features,  especially  consummation,  the 
essential  element  was  the  declaration  of  the  two  contracting  parties. 
In  1749  John  Wesley  entered  into  such  "spousals  de  praesenti''  with 
Grace  Murray,  so  that  she  thus  became  his  legal  wife,  technically 

2.  Edmund  Gibson,  Codex  Juris  Ecclesiastici  Anglicani,  2nd  ed.,  London, 
1761,  pp.  416-447,  1274-77;  cf.  Henry  Swinburne,  A  Treatise  of  Spousals,  Lon- 
don, 1686,  pp.  231-2,  and  William  Blackstone,  Commentaries  on  the  Laws  of 
England,  4th  ed.,  London,  1771,  vol.  1,  p.  439. 

3.  Richard  Burn,  Ecclesiastical  Law,  London,  1763,  vol.  2,  pp.  16-19. 


177 

subject  to  all  other  matrimonial  procedures  and  duties  under  pain 
of  death. 

Wesley  realized  the  legal  ramifications  of  what  he  was  doing  on 
this  occasion  far  more  clearly  than  the  vast  majority  of  his  contem- 
poraries, let  alone  the  post-1754  general  reader.  Especially  was  this 
true  because  he  had  been  vicariously  dragged  through  the  tangled 
undergrowth  of  English  marriage  law  as  a  young  Oxford  tutor  many 
years  before  he  met  Grace  Murray.  He  had  served  as  intermediary  in 
a  dispute  which  to  some  extent  foreshadowed  the  circumstances  of 
his  own  tragic  experience,  and  whose  outcome  undoubtedly  furnished 
one  of  the  reasons  why  he  was  content  to  leave  his  own  lawful  wife 
in  the  arms  of  another.  After  a  brief  introductory  glance  at  Wesley's 
own  first  marriage,  we  will  return  to  it  after  studying  this  earlier 
incident  which  gives  it  much  fuller  significance,  yet  has  so  far  re- 
mained unknown  to  his  biographers. 

Twice-widowed  Grace  Murray,  the  32-year-old  housekeeper  at 
Wesley's  headquarters  in  Newcastle,  engaged  in  a  remarkable  tri- 
angular dance  with  him  and  one  of  his  preachers,  John  Bennet,  linking 
hands  first  with  one  and  then  with  the  other  until  the  spectators  grow 
dizzy.  In  August  1748  Wesley  lay  ill  in  the  Newcastle  Orphan  House, 
and  his  enforced  leisure  gave  him  more  appreciative  eyes  for  his 
housekeeper,  who  also  served  as  his  nurse.  About  August  12  he  spoke 
the  first  tentative  words :  "If  ever  I  marry,  I  think  you  will  be  the 
person."  Shortly  afterwards  he  proposed  to  her  "more  directly,"  and 
she  gave  him  a  "voluntary  and  express  promise"  of  marriage.  This 
was  a  contract  de  futuro.^ 

Less  than  a  month  later,  on  September  7,  Grace  Murray  similarly 
promised  herself  to  John  Bennet,  to  whose  enquiry  "Is  there  not  a 
contract  between  you  and  Mr.  Wesley?"  she  answered,  "There  is 
not."  This  she  did  "partly  out  of  love  to  him  [i.e.  Bennet],  partly 
out  of  fear  of  exposing"  Wesley.  To  their  request  for  his  blessing 
Wesley  returned  "a  mild  answer,  .  .  .  supposing  they  were  married 
already."  In  fact  this  was  yet  another  contract  de  futuro.^  The  fol- 
lowing spring  and  summer  Grace  Murray  accompanied  Wesley  on  his 

4.  A.  Leger,  Wesley's  Last  Love,  London,  1910,  pp.  1-3,  12,  59;  John  Wesley, 
Journal,  Standard  ed.,  ed.  N.  Curnock,  London,  1938,  vol.  3,  pp.  365-7.  For  the 
various  editions  of  Wesley's  account  of  his  relations  with  Grace  Murray,  see 
Frank  Baker,  Union  Catalogue  of  the  Publications  of  John  and  Charles  Wesley, 
1966,  p.  208.  The  original  manuscripts  is  in  the  British  Museum,  but  Dr.  Leger's 
version  is  reliable  and  reasonably  accessible. 

5.  Leger,  op.  cit.,  pp.  2-4,  11-12,  60;  Wesley,  op.  cif.,  Ill,  376;  John  Bennet, 
MS  diary  in  Methodist  Archives,  London,  Sept.  7,  1748. 


178 

biennial  preaching  tour  around  Ireland,  both  as  "servant  and  friend" 
and  as  "a  fellow-labourer  in  the  Gospel."  During  this  time  she  ex- 
changed no  correspondence  with  John  Bennet,  and  his  name  so  seldom 
cropped  up  in  their  conversation  that  Wesley  was  convinced  that 
no  obstacle  remained  to  his  renewed  and  deepened  affection.  In  Dub- 
lin, about  the  middle  of  July,  1749,  they  took  a  step  from  which  in 
his  mind  at  least  there  was  no  drawing  back :  "The  more  we  convers'd 
together,  the  more  I  lov'd  her ;  &,  before  I  return'd  from  Ireland, 
we  contracted  by  a  Contract  de  praesenti."  Whether  or  not  they  pri- 
vately used  a  part  of  the  "Form  of  solemnization  of  matrimony"  in 
the  Book  of  Common  Prayer — and  this  remains  at  least  possible — 
Wesley  and  Grace  Murray  alike  repeated  a  formula  in  words  of  the 
present  tense  signifying  that  henceforth  they  were  man  and  wife, 
probably  the  words,  "I  take  thee  to  my  wedded  wife"  (or  husband")." 

Hardly  had  Grace  Murray  set  foot  on  English  soil,  however, 
before  a  passing  fit  of  jealousy  caused  by  gossip  about  her  newly- 
espoused  husband  prompted  her  to  write  to  Bennet.  He  renewed  his 
pursuit  of  her  to  such  good  effect  that  on  September  2  she  completely 
ignored  her  Dublin  contract,  which  in  fact  constituted  a  legal  mar- 
riage, and  said,  "I  will  marry  John  Bennet" — the  "will"  implying 
futurity  rather  than  insistence.  This  took  place,  strangely  enough,  in 
Wesley's  home  town  of  Epworth,  and  apparently  with  his  acquies- 
cence, for  Bennet  had  persuaded  him  that  Grace  wanted  to  renounce 
her  employer  in  favour  of  another  of  his  lay  employees.  On  the  face 
of  it  this  seemed  a  more  suitable  match,  and  Bennet  claimed  that 
Grace  was  much  more  deeply  in  love  with  him  than  with  Wesley.  It 
seems  certain  that  Wesley  already  knew  from  a  study  of  the  standard 
work  on  marriage  contracts,  Henry  Swinburne's  Treatise  of  Spousah, 
that  a  contract  de  praesenti  could  in  fact  be  dissolved  by  mutual 
agreement,  provided  that  sexual  intercourse  had  not  taken  place.*^ 

The  following  day,  however,  Grace  herself  told  Wesley  that  she 
loved  him  better  than  Bennet,  but  was  afraid  that  Bennet  might  "run 
mad"  if  she  didn't  marry  him.  In  the  light  of  this  revelation  Wesley 
pondered  the  advisability  of  pressing  his  legal  rights,  and  her  legal 
duty.  After  three  days  of  hesitation,  on  September  6  he  urged  her 
to  make  up  her  mind.  She  replied,  "I  am  determin'd  by  Conscience, 
as  well  as  Inclincation,  to  live  &  die  with  you."  Wesley  nevertheless 
gave  her  time  for  still  further  consideration.  Then  on  September  21 

6.  Leger,  op.  cit.,  pp.  5,  62-3. 

7.  Swinburne,  op.  cit.,  p.  236. 


179 

they  solemnly  renewed  their  DubHn  contract  de  praesenti,  this  time 
in  the  presence  of  a  witness,  another  of  his  preachers,  Christopher 
Hopper.  Wesley  rode  ofT  contentedly,  assured  that  there  could  now 
be  no  possible  hitch ;  they  were  legally  married,  in  fact  twice  legally 
married,  even  though  as  yet  there  had  been  no  church  ceremony  and 
no  consummation.^ 

Wesley  had  reckoned  without  a  strange  series  of  misunderstand- 
ings and  maneuverings  which  culminated  two  weeks  later,  on  October 
3,  1749,  with  the  solemnization  of  Grace  Murray's  marriage  to  John 
Bennet.  The  consummation  of  John  Wesley's  first  marriage  was  frus- 
trated alike  by  John  Bennet's  near-blind  frenzy  of  desire,  by  Grace 
Murray's  vacillation  and  her  vagueness  about  her  true  legal  stand- 
ing, by  Charles  Wesley's  impetuous  fears  for  Methodism,  and  by 
John  Wesley's  deliberate  sacrifice  of  dreams  of  domesticity  to  the 
claims  of  his  apostolic  ministry.  Wesley  knew  without  any  shadow 
of  doubt  (as  Grace  Murray  possibly  did  not)  that  in  the  eyes  of  the 
law  they  had  been  married  ever  since  their  first  contract  de  praesenti 
in  July,  particularly  as  two  months  later  it  had  been  confirmed  be- 
fore a  witness,  and  thus  made  easily  susceptible  of  proof.  There  would 
have  been  little  difificulty  in  overthrowing  her  union  with  John  Bennet 
as  bigamous.  Experience  had  already  taught  him,  however,  to  what 
extended  heartache  and  frustration  such  matrimonial  litigation  might 
lead.  This  knowledge  reinforced  the  urges  of  Christian  charity  and 
the  desire  to  protect  the  good  name  of  Methodism,  and  so  for  the 
third  time  he  was  content  to  let  her  go.® 

It  was  through  one  of  the  least  known  members  of  the  "Holy 
Club"  that  Wesley  had  been  introduced  to  a  similar  tragic  matri- 
monial entanglement  in  1731.  One  of  his  Oxford  notebooks  was  later 
used  to  record  the  names  of  the  band  members  of  the  Foundery 
Society,  including  that  of  Grace  Murray.  By  coincidence  the  chosen 
volume  also  summarized  the  important  events  of  the  year  1731,  in- 
cluding the  following  cryptic  note :  "July  29.  Mr.  B.  married  Mr. 
G.'s  wife."^**  "Mr.  B."  was  John  Boyce,  son  of  Sir  John  Boyce,  three 
times  Mayor  of  Oxford.  He  had  matriculated  at  Christ  Church,  Ox- 
ford, in  July,  1727,  aged  16,  and  became  one  of  Charles  Wesley's 
pupils,  graduating  in  1731.  While  still  an  undergraduate  he  had 
fallen  in  love  with  Margaret  Hudson,  a  girl  of  his  own  age,  the  only 

8.  Leger,  op.  cit.,  pp.  7-8,  12,  62-3,  77;  cf.  Bennet's  diary,  Sept.  2,  1749. 

9.  Leger,  op.  cit.,  pp.  63-98,  especially  pp.  78,  87,  89. 

10.  Wesley  Stiidies,  London,  1903,  pp.  53-4;  the  notebook  is  in  the  Methodist 
Archives,  London. 


180 

daughter  and  heiress  of  Dr.  John  Hudson,  late  Librarian  of  the  Bod- 
leian. Her  twice-married,  twice-widowed  mother,  Mrs.  Hall,  strongly- 
disapproved  of  their  courtship,  and  the  couple  had  not  seen  each  other 
for  sixteen  months  when  Mrs.  Hall  and  Sir  John  Boyce  suddenly 
brought  them  together.  Less  than  a  week  later,  on  July  29,  1731, 
they  were  married  in  the  parish  church  at  Cowley  by  Fifield  Allen 
of  Christ  Church.^^ 

Mrs.  Hall  and  her  daughter  lived  at  Eynsham,  and  the  "Mr.  G." 
of  Wesley's  note  was  their  vicar,  the  Rev.  John  Goole.  At  the  time 
of  the  wedding  he  was  away  in  Oxford.  On  his  return  he  at  first 
refused  to  believe  the  shattering  news,  for  he  was  himself  espoused 
to  the  girl  by  a  contract  de  praesenti.  When  the  forty-year-old  widower 
had  first  "addressed  himself"  to  Margaret  Hudson,  aged  eighteen, 
at  Eastertime,  1730,  she  first  blew  hot,  then  cold.  A  year  later,  how- 
ever, she  welcomed  his  advances,  and  although  they  agreed  to  defer 
a  public  ceremony  until  she  was  twenty-one,  on  June  10,  1731  they 
entered  into  a  "most  binding  and  sacred  engagement,"  in  which  they 
used  the  office  of  Matrimony  in  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer.  At  the 
time,  however,  neither  of  them  realized  that  this  contract  made  in 
words  of  the  present  tense  did  in  fact  constitute  a  valid  marriage, 
although  the  word  "spouse"  was  used  between  them.^^ 

Once  convinced  that  his  betrothed  had  indeed  married  Boyce, 
Goole  complained  in  writing  to  her  mother,  and  on  September  15 
served  a  writ  on  Boyce  and  his  bride,  sueing  them  for  damages  of 
L3000.  This  may  well  have  hastened  the  ailing  Mrs.  Hall's  death 
shortly  afterwards.  In  November,  1731,  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas 
awarded  him  L200  damages,  the  cost  of  the  expensive  trousseau 
which  he  had  bought. ^^ 

Meantime  Goole's  attention  had  been  directed  to  Henry  Swin- 
burne's Treatise  of  Spousals,  and  he  realized  that  his  case  was  far 
stronger  than  he  had  originally  thought.  Even  a  hasty  glance  at  the 
preface  would  convince  him  of  this : 


11.  John  Foster,  Ahanni  Oxonienses,  "John  Boyce";  Oxford  Historical 
Society,  vol.  41,  pp.  347ff. ;  Rawlinson  MSS,  Bodleian  15072,  vol.  5,  pp  30ff. ; 
MS  letter  of  Charles  Wesley,  June  11,  1731,  in  Methodist  Archives,  London; 
Dictionary  of  National  Biography,  "John  Hudson  (1662-1719)";  John  Goole, 
The  Contract  Violated,  London,  [1734],  pp.  3-5,  41,  46,  60-79,  88-9. 

12.  Goole,  op.  cit.,  pp.  2-20,  28,  App.  5-10,  14-31 ;  Foster,  op.  cit.,  "Goole, 
John." 

13.  Goole,  op.  cit.,  pp.  viii-ix,  21-4,  32-8;  "Goole  and  Boyce,"  eight  documents 
forming  a  file  of  forty  pages  in  the  Court  of  Arches  Archives,  Lambeth  Palace 
Library,  London,  especially  November  3,  1732,  items  5-8. 


f 


181 

There  is  no  difference  in  substance  betwixt  spousals  de  praesenti  (which 
make  up  a  principal  part  of  this  book)  and  matrimony;  only  the  pub- 
lick  office,  and  the  greater  solemnity  of  the  act,  together  with  a  benedic- 
tion of  the  minister,  are  by  law  requisite  to  compleat  the  matrimony, 
before  it  be  capable  of  those  legal  effects  of  dower  and  legitimation 
of  issue.  But  in  foro  conscientiae  [before  the  tribunal  of  conscience] 
they  are  as  much  man  and  wife,  as  if  all  legal  requisites  and  solemnities 
had  been  performed.  Nay,  as  to  some  legal  effects  also,  a  contract 
de  praesenti  has  the  same  force  that  a  lawful  marriage  has ;  for  the 
contract  is  indissoluble  so  long  as  the  parties  live;  and  if  either  party 
shall  after  such  contract  attempt  to  marry  elsewhere,  that  marriage  is 
null  and  void  ratione  praecontractus   \_by  reason  of  a  precontract'].^'^ 

This  made  him  seriously  doubt  whether  it  was  legally  possible  for 
him  to  agree  to  the  negotiated  settlement  being  urged  by  Sir  John 
Boyce,  and  he  told  Boyce's  emissary  that  "he  believed  he  should 
be  obliged  to  part  Mr.  Boyce  and  Miss  Hudson."^^ 

Goole  sought  legal  advice  from  Dr.  Henry  Brooke,  a  barrister 
better  known  to  later  generations  as  the  friend  of  John  Wesley  and 
the  author  of  The  Fool  of  Quality,  a  novel  so  successfully  abridged 
by  Wesley  that  it  became  a  best-seller.  Boyce  also  consulted  Brooke. 
He  told  them  both  that  in  his  opinion  Goole  was  unable  to  release 
Margaret  Hudson  from  her  contract  in  order  to  legalize  her  subse- 
quent marriage  to  Boyce,  but  that  the  case  was  "nice,"  so  that  it  was 
desirable  to  secure  other  opinions.  For  these  Boyce  offered  to  pay, 
whereupon  Dr.  Brooke  drew  up  the  following  "State  and  Queries" 
for  submission  to  Doctors  Commons,  the  London  headquarters  of  the 
Doctors  of  Civil  Law : 

A.  B.  Single  woman,  aged  nineteen  and  upwards,  without  consent 
of  friends,  enters  into  an  absolute  contract  de  praesenti  of  marriage 
with  C.  D.  After  such  contract  A.B.  de  facto  [actually]  marries  E.F. 

1.  Qluery].  Is  it  in  the  power  of  C.  D.  to  give  A.  B.  such  a  release 
from  the  contract  aforesaid,  as  will  make  her  marriage  with  E.  F. 
legal  and  valid  ? 

2.  Qluery].  If  such  a  release  may  by  law  be  given  to  C.  D.,  would 
it  not  be  proper  for  A.  B.  and  E.  F.  to  solemnize  matrimony  over 
again  ?^^ 

John  Wesley  was  enlisted  as  Brooke's  envoy.  He  duly  visited 
London,  secured  the  opinions,  and  on  January  17,  1731/2,  made 
certified  transcripts.  That  from  Dr.  William  Strahan  confirmed 
Brooke's  judgment: 

14.  Swinburne,  op.  cit.,  pp.  [iv-v]. 

15.  Goole,  op.  cit.,  pp.  37-9,  App.  58,  61. 

16.  Goole,  op.  cit.,  pp.  39-40,  43,  48-50,  App.  2-4. 


182 

A  contract  de  praesenti  is  a  real  marriage,  and  only  wants  the  outward 
form  and  ceremony :  and  it  is  not  in  the  power  of  the  contracting 
parties  to  release  one  another  from  such  contract.  I  don't  think  the 
woman's  being  a  minor  .  .  .  will  much  vary  the  case.  For  she  was 
of  sufficient  age  to  contract  matrimony;  and  altho'  she  ought  not  to 
have  entered  into  such  contract  without  the  consent  of  her  parents  or 
guardians,  yet  the  want  of  such  consent  does  not  destroy  the  contract, 
no  more  than  it  would  destroy  a  marriage  solemnized  in  the  face  of 
the  church. 

Dr.  George  Paul's  opinion  was  to  the  same  effect : 

By  the  canon  law,  as  it  is  received  in  England,  and  become  part  of 
the  laws  of  the  realm,  a  contract  in  words  of  the  present  time,  seriously 
and  solemnly  made,  is,  in  truth  and  substance,  matrimony  indissoluble. 
It  has  been  the  general  opinion  of  learned  divines  and  lawyers,  that, 
tho,  there  should  be  no  evidence,  according  to  the  rules  of  the  law,  of 
such  spousals,  the  parties  having  really,  tho'  secretly,  contracted  them- 
selves, yet  they  are  thereby  become  so  far  man  and  wife  before  God, 
that  neither  can,  with  a  safe  and  good  conscience,  marry  elsewhere, 
so  long  as  the  other  party  liveth. 

A  woman  may  contract  herself  absolutely  when  she  is  pubes,  which 
is  deemed  at  law  a  ripeness  of  age  fit  for  marriage,  in  women  at  12,  in 
men  at  the  age  of  14  years. 

Upon  the  whole  case  therefore,  I  am  of  opinion,  that  A.  B.  aged 
19,  by  entering  into  an  absolute  contract  of  the  present  time  with  C.  D., 
may  be  compelled,  by  ecclesiastical  censures,  to  solemnize  a  marriage 
with  him  in  the  face  of  the  church ;  and  that  the  marriage  with  E.  F. 
will  (upon  proper  proofs  of  the  above-stated  contract)  be  adjudged 
null  and  void  in  law.^''^ 

The  opinions  were  placed  before  both  Boyce  and  Goole  at  a 
meeting  in  Dr.  Brooke's  chambers,  with  Wesley  also  present.  Boyce 
clearly  recognized  the  weakness  of  his  position,  and  seemed  deter- 
mined not  to  cohabit  with  Margaret  Hudson  until  it  had  been  legally 
settled  whose  wife  she  was,  though  he  was  later  dissuaded  from  that 
honest  course,  especially  as  she  was  already  pregnant.  Boyce  also 
agreed  to  let  Goole  have  copies  of  the  legal  opinions  in  return  for 
copies  of  Margaret  Hudson's  letters  to  Goole,  the  attested  copies  in 
each  case  to  be  prepared  by  their  mutually  acceptable  go-between, 
John  Wesley.  Accordingly  Wesley's  diary  for  January  17,  1731/2 
records:  "Monday  17th.  12>^  at  Mr.  Goole's,  in  talk.  1  dinner.  [2?] 
read  M.  Hudson's  letters ;  in  talk.  4>4  set  out."^^ 

17.  Goole,  op.  cit.,  App.  2-4. 

18.  Goole,  op.  cit.,  pp.  42-3,  76-8,  App.  2-4 ;  Wesley's  AIS  diary,  Methodist 
Archives,  London,  transcribed  by  the  Rev.  Wesley  F.  Swift. 


183 

John  Goole  sought  a  final  decision  at  the  highest  level,  the  Court 
of  Arches,  constantly  insisting  that  this  was  his  moral  duty,  in  order 
to  warn  the  Boyces  and  those  similarly  placed  of  the  mortal  as  well 
as  immortal  danger  of  living  in  sin.^^  By  this  time  Margaret  Hudson 
was  well  on  in  pregnancy,  and  bore  a  child  as  the  case  against  her 
was  in  its  opening  stages ;  he  was  baptized  John  on  May  14,  1732.-^ 
( Incidentally,  it  is  remarkable  how  many  Johns  appear  in  this  story : 
Goole,  Boyce,  and  their  intermediary  Wesley  were  all  named  John; 
so  was  Margaret  Hudson's  father ;  so  was  Boyce's  father,  and  now 
his  son ;  so  also  was  the  man  who  later  stole  John  Wesley's  own  wife 
from  under  his  nose.) 

The  case  dragged  on.  By  the  time  it  came  to  trial  in  June,  1733, 
Margaret  Hudson  was  nearing  the  birth  of  her  second  child.  These 
two  children  seem  to  have  furnished  strong  though  irrelevant  argu- 
ments in  her  favour,  supporting  the  pressure  and  possible  bribery 
that  Goole  suspected.  Certainly  trickery  was  used  against  him ;  apart 
from  the  lavish  and  unimpeded  blackening  of  his  own  character,  her 
advocates  managed  to  find  a  weak  link  in  the  ecclesiastical  law.  Her 
minority  was  no  more  a  defense  than  the  lack  of  witnesses,  but  Swin- 
burne's Spousals  made  it  clear  that  "when  these  words  of  the  present 
time  are  uttered  in  jeast  or  sport  .  .  .  such  wanton  words  are  not 
at  all  obligatory  in  so  serious  a  matter  as  is  matrimony."  According- 
ly she  pleaded  that  her  contract  was  undertaken  as  a  joke — even 
though  it  involved  the  solemn  use  of  the  prayer  book  and  the  accep- 
tance of  expensive  presents.  The  Dean  of  the  Arches,  Dr.  John 
Bettesworth,  was  clearly  much  in  sympathy  with  the  young  woman. 
Even  Dr.  Paul  forsook  his  earlier  written  opinion  and  signed  the 
final  judgment  that  the  "pretended  marriage  contract  .  .  .  was  and  is 
null  and  void  and  altogether  invalid  in  law."  Goole  even  had  to  pay 
the  legal  costs  on  pain  of  excommunication.^^ 

Immediately  this  sentence  was  passed  John  Goole  declared  that 
he  would  publish  his  vindication.  In  six  or  seven  weeks  it  was 
ready,  and  on  July  26  he  sent  it  to  Wesley,  asking  him  to  read  it, 
and  to  communicate  the  contents  to  Boyce.  On  August  1  or  2,  Wes- 
ley replied : 

19.  Goole,  op.  cit.,  pp.  v.  42-5 ;  cf  pp.  67,  76. 

20.  Court  of  Arches,  "Goole  and  Boyce,"  especially  Goole's  deposition,  No- 
vember 3,  1732,  item  4. 

21.  "Goole  and  Boyce,"  Court  of  Arches;  cf.  Goole,  op.  cit.,  pp.  44,  62-75,  87-9, 
App.  32-6. 


184 

Sir, 

I  sent  Mr.  Boyce  word  yesterday,  that  I  was  apt  to  think  you  were 
so  far  from  the  desire  of  revenge,  which  he  had  been  informed  you 
every  where  shewed,  that  if  he  could  propose  any  other  way  of  satis- 
fying that  desire  of  clearing  your  reputation  which  a  Christian  ought 
to  have,  you  would  yet  desist  from  your  design  of  publishing  your 
case. 

Goole  did  indeed  ask  Margaret  Hudson  (now  legally  Boyce)  to  sign 
a  testimonial  to  his  "justice,  fidelity,  and  honour,"  but  heard  nothing 
until  October,  when  the  desired  satisfaction  seemed  no  nearer.  In 
December  1733,  therefore,  he  set  about  publishing  The  Contract 
Violated,  which  in  his  dedication  "to  all  lovers  of  truth,  sincerity, 
and  honour"  he  described  as  an  "unparallel'd  case."^^ 

The  Gentleman's  Magazine  entered  a  simple  announcement  of 
Goole's  170-page  pamphlet  in  the  issue  for  May,  1734.  His  avowed 
end  of  seeking  to  expose  the  dangers  of  secret  marriages,  however, 
as  well  as  the  sluggishness  of  the  ecclesiastical  courts,  was  more  fully 
served  by  the  Grub  Street  Journal,  which  serialized  the  case.  Issue 
No.  248  for  Thursday,  September  26,  1734,  described  it  as  "of  such 
an  extraordinary  nature  that  it  deserves  to  be  more  generally  known. 
It  may  hinder  persons  from  rashly  entering  into  private  solemn  con- 
tracts ;  in  the  performance  of  which  they  will  probably  meet  with 
great  difficulties  and  inconveniences.  And  it  may  divert  those  who  have 
been  perfidiously  deceived,  from  vainly  exposing  themselves  to  very 
great  trouble  and  charge  by  seeking  a  redress  at  law."^^  John  Wes- 
ley learned  the  second  lesson,  if  not  the  first. 

Until  the  1754  marriage  reform,  however,  others  continued  to 
fall  into  the  same  trap,  and  the  unfortunate  results  occasionally  ap- 
peared even  in  the  Gentleman's  Magazine,  which  Wesley  frequently 
read.  He  would  surely  shake  his  head  in  sympathy  in  1740  when  he 
read  of  a  young  man  whose  secretly  contracted  wife  was  similarly 
married  in  church  to  another  man.  High  ecclesiastical  authorities 
again  supported  the  first  husband,  but  he  refused  to  press  his  claim, 
saying,  "I  knew  I  could  have  done  myself  justice  afterwards,  but  that 
being  impossible  without  exposing  her  to  the  whole  nation,  I  chose 
rather  to  suffer  myself  than  that  she  should."-* 

In  a  similar  position  to  this  young  man  John  Wesley  found  him- 

22.  Goole,  op.  cit.,  pp  [iii],  v-xii ;  the  prohibition  of  its  publication  and  sale 
in  Oxford  caused  difficulty  and  delay ;  see  pp.  xv-xvi. 

23.  Copy  in  Rawlinson,  MSS,  vol.  5,  p.  42,  Bodleian  Library,  Oxford. 

24.  Gentleman's  Magazine,  1740,  pp.  172-5;  cf.  1748,  p.  329,  and  1751,  pp. 
328,  570. 


185 

self  a  few  years  later.  Repeatedly  Grace  Murray  urged  that  their 
Dublin  contract  should  be  sealed  by  public  matrimony,  but  Wesley 
insisted  that  three  prior  steps  were  necessary :  he  must  get  the  matter 
straight  with  her  other  suitor,  John  Bennet;  in  accordance  with  a 
longstanding  agreement  he  must  secure  the  consent  of  his  brother 
Charles ;  and  he  must  seek  the  understanding  prayers  of  the  Methodist 
preachers  and  people.  Grace  agreed  to  wait  for  a  year.  And  so  at  her 
request  they  renewed  the  contract  de  praesenti  at  Hindley  Hill, 
Northumberland,  with  trusty  Christopher  Hopper  as  witness.  That 
on  this  occasion  they  used  a  part  of  the  prayer  book  order  receives 
some  confirmation  from  one  of  her  letters  four  days  later:  "If  Mr. 
Bennet  comes  ...  I  must  not  see  him.  It  will  tear  my  soul  to  pieces ; 
seeing  I  can  by  no  means  help  him  now.  For  whom  God  hath  join'd 
together,  no  man  can  put  asunder."  An  hour  after  the  simple  but 
solemn  ceremony  Wesley  took  horse  for  Whitehaven  "with  not  one 
uneasy  thought,  believing  God  would  give  us  to  meet  again,  at  the 
time  when  he  saw  good."  This  was  on  Thursday,  September  21, 
174925 

A  tiny  cloud  of  foreboding  on  the  horizon,  however,  loomed 
nearer,  heavy  with  tragedy.  The  following  night  Wesley  was  dis- 
turbed by  a  dream  in  which  John  Bennet  hinted  that  Grace  Murray 
was  living  with  him.  On  the  Saturday,  without  any  conscious  realiza- 
tion of  what  he  was  doing,  Wesley  began  his  first  letter  to  his  doubly- 
contracted  spouse  with  the  lines : 

There  is  I  know  not  what  of  sad  presage 
That  tells  me  we  shall  never  meet  again.-^ 

On  Sunday  words  in  the  first  lesson  pierced  his  heart  like  a  sword : 
"Son  of  man,  behold  I  take  from  thee  the  desire  of  thine  eyes  with 
a  stroke!"  Immediately,  he  says,  "a  shivering  ran  thro'  me,  &  in  a 
few  minutes  I  was  in  a  fever." 

Wesley  had  written  other  letters  designed  to  hasten  the  date  of 
his  public  union  with  Grace  Murray.  That  to  John  Bennet,  how- 
ever, went  astray,  and  the  one  to  Wesley's  brother  sent  Charles 
into  a  panic  of  activity  to  prevent  a  step  which  he  was  convinced 
would  ruin  their  work.  On  the  Monday  Charles  burst  upon  John  in 
Whitehaven,  denouncing  this  unsuitable  match  with  a  woman  already 
betrothed  to  another.   For  some  reason,  probably  because   Charles 

25.  Leger,  op.  cit.,  pp.  14,  62-3,  89. 

26.  Cf.  Shakespeare,  Richard  II,  ii.  2.  142-3,  "Farewell :  if  heart's  presages 
be  not  vain,/We  three  here  part  that  ne'er  shall  meet  again." 


186 

was  too  heated  to  think  clearly,  John  was  unable  to  convince  him 
that  his  own  marriage  contract  with  Grace  Murray  was  both  prior 
to  Bennet's  and  more  binding.  In  any  case  Charles  did  not  possess 
John's  intimate  knowledge  and  vicarious  experience  in  this  matter. 
Eventually  they  agreed  to  sleep  on  it,  and  then  to  submit  the  issue 
to  their  venerable  friend,  the  Rev.  Vincent  Perronet  of  Shoreham. 

The  following  day,  however,  Charles  unexpectedly  left  ahead 
of  John,  and  when  John  arrived  at  Hindley  Hill  it  was  to  hear  that 
Grace  Murray  had  ridden  ofif  behind  Charles  two  hours  earlier.  The 
foreboding  grew  stronger.  He  exclaimed  with  Job,  "The  Lord  gave, 
and  the  Lord  hath  taken  away!  Blessed  be  the  name  of  the  Lord!" 
Abandoning  his  first  intention  of  pursuing  them,  yet  realizing  that 
this  was  "giving  up  all,"  he  returned  for  his  week-end  activities  in 
Whitehaven.  On  Sunday,  October  1,  he  confessed,  "I  was  in  great 
heaviness ;  my  heart  was  sinking  in  me  like  a  stone."  Only  in  the 
services  did  he  find  any  relief.  That  night  he  prayed  for  a  sign  of 
God's  will,  and  in  a  dream  saw  Grace  Murray  executed.  The  follow- 
ing evening  he  received  a  message  from  his  old  pupil  and  friend 
George  Whitefield  pressing  him  to  come  to  Leeds,  where  Charles 
also  would  meet  them.  Accordingly  the  following  day,  Tuesday, 
October  3,  he  rode  to  Leeds,  arriving  at  nightfall.  He  did  not  know 
it,  but  this  was  his  wife's  wedding  day.^^ 

Charles  Wesley  was  determined  to  save  John  from  folly  and 
the  work  of  God  from  disruption.  Leaving  his  brother  at  Whitehaven 
he  had  ridden  posthaste  to  Hindley  Hill,  bursting  in  upon  a  Grace 
Murray  already  perplexed  and  distressed  by  John  Wesley's  fore- 
boding letter.  He  gave  her  a  pastoral  kiss,  said  "Grace  Murray,  you 
have  broke  my  heart!",  and  promptly  fainted.  On  recovering  he 
handed  her  an  accusing  letter  which  he  had  written  the  previous 
day,  and  was  thus  delivering  in  person.  She  apparently  assumed 
that  it  conveyed  the  sentiments  of  John  as  well  as  of  Charles,  and 
agreed  to  go  with  him  to  Leeds  to  meet  the  two  claimants  to  her 
hand.  Nearing  Durham,  they  learned  that  Bennet  was  at  Newcastle, 
and  on  her  request  (or  at  least  with  her  agreement)  turned  north 
once  more  to  seek  him  out.  Charles  Wesley  similarly  took  Bennet  by 
storm,  to  such  effect  that  on  the  following  morning,  Tuesday,  Octo- 
ber 3,  he  and  Grace  were  married  by  the  Rev.  Richard  (  ?)  Brewster 
in  St.  Andrew's  Church,  Newcastle.^^ 

27.  Leger,  op.  cit.,  pp.  63-6,  79-86. 

28.  Bennet,  MS  diary,  October  3,   1749,  which  names  "Mr.   Bruister" ;   for 


187 

When  John  Wesley  arrived  for  the  Leeds  rendezvous  Whitefield 
tried  to  break  the  news  gently :  he  was  certain  that  Charles  would 
not  show  up  until  he  had  seen  Grace  and  Bennet  married,  in  spite 
of  Whitefield's  own  attempts  to  persuade  them  to  wait.  He  himself 
was  quite  convinced  that  Grace  was  Wesley's  wife,  but  (as  he  ex- 
pressed it)  Charles's  "impetuosity  prevail'd  &  bore  down  all  before 
it."  Sure  enough,  Charles  did  not  arrive  for  their  meeting  on  Wednes- 
day. On  Thursday  morning  an  advance  messenger  brought  the 
news — "they  were  married  on  Tuesday."  An  hour  later  came  Charles 
himself,  still  hot  with  indignation  against  his  brother.  He  called 
John  a  villain  and  renounced  all  ties  of  Christian  friendship,  while 
Whitefield  and  John  Nelson  tried  tearfully  to  reconcile  them.  At 
length  Charles  was  brought  to  his  senses,  seemed  "utterly  amaz'd" 
to  discover  the  true  contractual  relationship  between  his  brother 
and  Grace,  and  began  to  lay  all  the  blame  on  her.^^ 

Little  by  little,  patiently  and  painfully,  John  Wesley  was  able 
to  unravel  the  tangled  threads  and  to  see  how  a  series  of  misunder- 
standings in  the  minds  of  all  the  chief  participants  had  led  to  this 
bewildering  and  saddening  mix-up.  Describing  his  interview  the 
following  day  with  Bennet  and  Grace,  when  for  a  long  time  they 
"sat  weeping  at  each  other,"  John  Wesley  summed  it  all  up:  "Be- 
tween them  both,  I  knew  not  what  to  say  or  do.  I  can  forgive.  But 
who  can  redress  the  wrong  ?"^" 

Certainly  John  Wesley  himself  was  not  prepared  to  redress  the 
wrong.  Better  than  most  people  he  knew  that  the  law  was  fully  on  his 
side.  He  would  have  had  far  less  difficulty  than  John  Goole  in  prov- 
ing his  contract  de  praesenti  with  Grace  Murray,  and  thus  annulling 
her  bigamous  union  with  Bennet.  Granted,  there  remained  a  little 
uncertainty  as  to  how  an  ecclesiastical  court  would  react,  even  in 
the  clearest  of  cases.  In  his  favour,  however,  were  not  only  the 
strongest  legal  arguments,  but  his  own  prestige,  over  against  that  of 
his  lowly  preacher.  Surely  he  must  have  won  his  case !  Yet  there 
seems  no  evidence  that  he  ever  seriously  pondered  bringing  the  matter 
before  the  courts.  Swinburne's  Spousals  allowed  for  the  dissolution 
even  of  a  contract  de  praesenti  by  the  mutual  agreement  of  the  parties 
before  consummation.  This  course  would  bring  least  suffering  to  the 
two  friends  who  had  thus  injured  him,  least  damage  to  the  work 

the  probable  identification  with  Richard  Brewster   see  Venn's  Alumni  Canta- 
brigien^es;  no  suitable  candidate  offers  in  Foster's  Alumni  Oxonienses. 

29.  Leger,  op.  cit.,  pp.  87-88. 

30.  Leger,  op.  cit.,  pp.  89-98. 


188 

of  God.  This  course  he  followed.  He  bowed  his  head  to  the  bitter  blow 
and  poured  out  his  heartbreak  in  tearstained  verse.^^ 

It  would  be  pleasant  to  end  our  story  with  a  paragraph  describing 
how  all  concerned  lived  happily  ever  after,  but  this  would  fall  short  of 
the  whole  truth.  A  hasty  summary  of  their  fortunes,  however,  seems 
in  order.  John  Goole  later  repented  the  publication  of  The  Contract 
Violated,  terming  it  "an  inaccurate  apology,  wrote  perhaps  under 
too  quick  a  sense  of  irreparable  wrongs" ;  he  himself  faded  into 
obscurity,  and  his  death  is  not  recorded  in  the  Gentleman's  Maga- 
zine.^- John  Boyce  left  the  area  to  become  rector  of  Saintbury,  Glou- 
cestershire, where  he  died  in  1776,  seventeen  years  after  his  wife 
Margaret,  Their  first  child  survived  to  young  manhood;  two  other 
boys,  including  their  second  child,  William,  entered  the  Anglican 
ministry  and  served  their  father's  parish  for  a  time;  three  others 
of  their  eight  children  died  in  1748,  probably  during  some  epidemic.^* 
John  Bennet  remained  on  friendly  terms  with  Charles  Wesley,  but 
his  relationships  with  John  were  always  strained;  he  left  the  Meth- 
odists to  become  an  independent  minister,  and  died  in  1759.  Grace 
survived  him  until  1803,  writing  in  her  diary  on  the  48th  anniversary 
of  their  marriage,  "What  seas  of  grief  God  has  brought  me  through 
none  but  he  and  myself  know."  Their  first  child,  born  August  22, 
1750,  was  also  christened  John ;  another  son  lived  to  write  a  biography 
of  his  mother.^* 

As  for  the  bereft  John  Wesley,  yet  another  convalescence  gave 
him  leisure  to  study  yet  another  widow  who  used  a  gentle  hand  in 
nursing  him,  and  to  whom  he  proposed  marriage.  Once  more  he 
was  married  under  a  cloud  of  secrecy,  which  has  not  yet  been  fully 
pierced,  with  results  that  were  notoriously  less  congenial  and  less 
fruitful  either  for  him  or  for  Methodism  than  his  marriage  with 
Grace  Murray  might  well  have  been.  That,  however,  is  another  story. 

31.Leger,  op.  cit.,  pp.  98-105. 

32.  Rawlinson  MSS,  vol.  5,  p.  31,  Bodleian  Library,  Oxford. 

33.  D.  MSS,  "Boyce,"  Society  of  Genealogists,  London. 

34.  William    Bennet,    Memoirs    of   Mrs.    Grace    Bennet,    Macclesfield,    1803, 
pp.  22-4,  71 ;  cf.  John  Bennet's  MS  diary,  Methodist  Archives,  London. 


What  We  Expect  from  Young 
Ministers 

Paul  Hardin,  III 
Professor  of  Law,  Duke  University 

The  topic  which  Thor  Hall  suggested  for  our  discussion  this 
morning  was  most  appealing,  at  least  at  first  glance.  What  Methodist 
layman,  particularly  the  son  of  a  Methodist  minister,  would  not 
relish  the  opportunity  to  turn  the  tables  and  tell  a  whole  roomful 
of  preachers  what  he  expects  of  them?  Thor  did  have  the  foresight 
to  limit  me  to  twelve  minutes.  But  the  exact  topic,  "What  We  Expect 
from  Young  Ministers,"  has  a  troublesome  pronoun.  It  is  always 
hard  to  know  when  we  are  speaking  for  others  and  when  we  are 
speaking  only  for  ourselves.  I  can't  claim  to  be  a  typical  layman — I 
don't  know  what  that  is.  My  father  is  a  minister,  my  uncle  is  a 
minister,  my  cousin  Wannie  is  studying  here  with  you,  and  I  almost 
became  a  minister  myself — any  number  of  times.  Many  of  the  members 
of  your  fine  faculty  are  closer  friends  of  mine  than  some  of  my  own 
colleagues  on  the  law  faculty.  So  perhaps  I  am  closer  to  the  clergy 
than  most  laymen ;  still,  I  believe  that  I  speak  for  an  appreciable  num- 
ber of  laymen  in  my  general  age  group  and  urban  situation.  At  the  very 
minimum  I  speak  for  myself,  and  I  count  it  a  great  privilege  to  have 
been  asked  to  tell  you  briefly  of  my  hopes  for  you  once  you  have 
completed  your  course  of  study  here. 

First  I  hope  that  most  of  you  will  go  into  the  parish  ministry. 
I  don't  mean  to  disparage  a  teaching  career;  I  left  law  practice  to 
teach  law.  I  don't  disparage  foreign  missions ;  I  have  visited  foreign 
mission  fields  and  been  profoundly  impressed  by  the  selfless  labors 
I  saw  there.  I  know  the  worth  of  the  hospital  chaplaincy,  the  campus 
ministry,  and  urban  missions.  I  simply  appear  today  as  a  representative 
of  the  pew — of  the  congregation — and  hold  up  the  parish  ministry 
as  a  vitally  important  calling.  Just  in  order  to  get  it  behind  us,  I'll 
mention  first  the  practical  argument:  that  all  of  the  other  phases  of 
the  Christian  ministry  are  underwritten  financially  by  the  parish 
church.  I  prefer  to  appeal  to  you  by  arguing  that  the  parish  ministry 

Remarks  delivered  in  York  Chapel,  April  19,  1966. 


190 

is  a  most  challenging  and  most  difficult  and,  therefore,  potentially 
a  most  rewarding  form  of  ministry.  If  it  appears  to  you  to  be  softer 
or  easier  than  other  forms,  you,  my  friend,  don't  understand  the 
problem.  Have  you  ever  thought  how  much  easier  it  is  to  approach 
the  African  native  who  pathetically  hungers  for  shelter,  education, 
and  medical  care  than  it  is  to  approach  the  middle-class  nominal 
Christian  who  thinks  he  has  no  needs  except  pulpit  platitudes  and 
an  occasional  pastoral  visit  ?  And,  speaking  of  challenge :  compare 
ministering  to  the  wretched  inhabitant  of  the  urban  slum  who  either 
never  has  been  churched  or  has  long  since  left  the  church  because  he 
found  it  inadequate,  with  ministering  to  that  middle-class  character  in 
the  pew  who  finds  the  church  quite  adequate  for  his  needs  because  he 
does  not  understand  the  Christian  Gospel  and  does  not  even  perceive 
his  needs.  And,  if  anyone  deserves  your  help  and  ministry,  is  it  not 
the  church  member  who  fully  appreciates  the  inadequacy  of  the 
church  but  who  stays  with  it  out  of  hope,  habit,  and  helpless  affection  ? 
Finally — and  the  argument  comes  back  full  circle  in  a  way — con- 
sider the  comparative  efficiency  of  your  going  alone  into  the  foreign 
mission  field  or  urban  slum  and  your  mobilizing  an  entire  congrega- 
tion of  Christians  to  show  genuine  Christian  social  concern. 

So,  you  are  needed  in  our  churches  to  wake  up  the  great  mass 
of  church  members  who  are  afflicted  with  Sunday  morning  religion, 
and  you  are  also  needed  to  minister  to  the  comparatively  few  but 
steadily  growing  number  of  church  people  who  are  ready  for  church 
renewal.  Never  has  dynamic  pastoral  leadership  been  more  desperate- 
ly needed! 

Now,  what  do  we  want  from  you  when  you  come  to  our  churches 
as  pastors? 

First  we  hope  for  a  relevant  and  tough-minded  pulpit,  and  I  put 
that  first  without  hesitation.  I  am  not  speaking  primarily  of  dynamic 
delivery  or  winsome  pulpit  personality,  although  they  are  important — 
I  speak  mainly  of  sermon  content.  Different  ages  perhaps  call  for 
different  pulpit  emphases.  This  age  is  not  one  for  "Norman  Vincent's 
happiness  peales" ;  nor  is  it  one  for  Upper  Room  bromides — not 
from  the  pulpit — although  these  fine  little  meditations  written  by 
highly  regarded  men  and  women  of  the  church  have  an  appropriate 
role  to  play  on  the  contemporary  scene.  What  does  this  age  demand 
from  our  pulpits  ? 

First,  preach  the  Christian  Gospel.  We  are  starved  for  doctrine; 
we  want  to  hear  theology  spoken  from  the  pulpits.  We  are  fairly 


191 

well  educated  these  days.  We  have  even  dipped  into  Bonhoeffer  or 
read  a  bit  of  Tillich,  At  least  we  have  followed  the  "God  is  Dead" 
movement  as  best  we  can  in  Time  and  The  New  Yorker.  You  must  be 
sure  when  you  come  to  us  that  you  have  read  more  deeply  and  under- 
stood more  fully.  Interpret  the  Gospel  to  us.  Show  us  what  Jesus 
of  Nazareth  has  to  do  with  modern  theology.  Show  us  what  Chris- 
tianity offers  which  sets  it  apart  from  secular  humanitarianism.  Don't 
preach  fundamentalism  to  us — not  even  New  Testament  fundamental- 
ism. Preach  a  modern,  relevant  Christian  theology. 

Second,  preach  a  social  gospel.  Get  us  to  stop  thinking  so  much 
about  the  after-life,  which  is  a  mystery,  and  persuade  us  that  our  call- 
ing is  to  minister  in  this  life,  which  is  a  present  and  perplexing  and 
provocative  reality.  Do  not  steer  clear  of  the  controversial,  no 
matter  what  you  may  have  heard  about  the  district  superintendent.  Do 
rock  the  boat!  There  is  no  church  too  far  south  to  accommodate 
brotherhood  sermons.  And  if  you  preach  in  the  north,  preach  against 
complacency  and  against  intolerance  toward  the  southern  brethren. 
The  wealthier  your  congregation,  the  more  important  it  is  to  empha- 
size the  obligations  of  wealth.  The  poorer  your  congregation,  the 
more  important  it  is  to  preach  self-improvement  and  individual  initia- 
tive. If  most  of  your  hearers  agree  with  all  you  say,  you  are  missing 
the  mark. 

Third,  preach  personal  morality.  I  take  issue  with  the  excesses 
of  the  so-called  new  morality.  I  gather  that  the  fashionable  approach 
to  Christian  ethics  is  pretty  specific  and  pretty  absolute  in  terms  of 
social  sins.  We  must  work  for  racial  equality,  world  peace,  and  the 
alleviation  of  poverty.  Amen!  But  the  new  approach  to  personal 
morality  is  a  good  deal  more  general.  It  is  not  popular  to  discuss 
personal  virtues  and  vices ;  the  modern  Christian  moralist  is  reluctant 
to  identify  anything  as  a  personal  vice  or  sin.  Instead,  he  invites 
us  to  face  life's  problems — "existential  situations" — by  pondering 
the  commandment  of  love  and  to  do  whatever  seems  likely  to  enrich 
our  interpersonal  relationships  and  further  the  "I-Thou"  relation- 
ship. That  formula  isn't  adequate  for,  say,  a  young  person  facing 
adult  temptations.  It  isn't  even  adequate  for  us  adults.  Christ  did 
say  that  the  first  commandment  was  to  love  God  and  the  second  to 
love  thy  neighbor ;  but  that  isn't  all  he  taught  us  about  Qiristian  life 
and  living.  I  recall  other  rather  specific  ethical  injunctions :  "Let  him 
who  is  without  sin  cast  the  first  stone."  "What  therefore  God  hath 
joined  together,  let  not  man  put  asunder."  And  so  on.  And  what  of  the 


192 

teachings  of  Paul  and  the  rules  of  Wesley?  If  you  say  to  me,  we  are 
not  bound  by  these  ancient  precepts,  I  agree.  I  am  skeptical  of  time- 
less truths  and  immutable  principles.  We  lawyers  feel  that  courts 
are  not  rigidly  bound  by  precedent.  But  we  also  feel  that  the  decisions 
of  predecessors,  taken  after  sober  reflection,  are  useful  guides  in 
similar  situations.  I  always  find  it  refreshing  to  hear  a  minister  or 
layman  subscribe  unblushingly  to  the  good  old  Methodist  principles 
of  marital  fidelity  and  abstention  from  the  use  of  alcoholic  beverages. 
I  find  these  principles  supportable  in  reason  as  well  as  authority. 
Don't  preach  at  us  to  follow  rules  just  because  they  have  been  laid 
down,  but  you  might  try  to  show  us  the  rationality  and  meaning  of 
the  unique  Christian  life — different  from  other  lives  in  that  it  is  lived 
in  response  to  God's  grace  in  Christ. 

A  word  of  warning.  Whether  you  are  preaching  social  or  personal 
morality,  don't  expend  all  of  your  ammunition  on  the  first  Sunday 
in  a  new  pastorate.  Warm  up  to  your  folks  a  bit  first.  Hold  back  your 
big  guns  until  you  have  married  a  few,  baptized  a  few,  and  buried  a 
few.  Love  them  for  a  short  time,  then  rear  back  and  let  'em  have  it. 
If  you  love  your  people  genuinely,  if  you  practice  as  well  as  preach 
Christian  love  and  tolerance,  they  will  take  whatever  you  dish  out. 
Avoid  two  errors — one  is  to  start  too  fast  without  establishing  rap- 
port ;  the  other  is  never  to  get  started  at  all.  The  errors  are  equally 
egregious,  the  end  result  the  same:  an  inefifective  pulpit. 

I  wish  there  were  time  to  get  beyond  the  pulpit  into  what  else 
we  expect  of  our  young  ministers.  Let  me  just  say  that  preaching, 
while  important,  is  not  enough.  In  a  sense  it  just  gets  our  attention 
so  that  we  can  work  together  in  the  vineyard.  As  we  work  together, 
we  need  spiritual  leadership  from  the  pastor.  In  all  the  affairs  of 
the  local  church  and  the  connectional  church,  laymen  will  be  found 
who  will  take  the  lead  in  material  matters,  such  as  a  new  roof  on 
the  parsonage,  new  carpet  in  the  sanctuary,  or  new  furniture  for 
the  nursery.  You  ministers  must  prod  us  on  missions  and  other 
benevolences.  Keep  us  turned  outward  toward  others,  not  inward  on 
ourselves. 

To  put  the  whole  matter  very  shortly,  what  we  expect  of  you 
as  young  ministers  is  that  you  should  come  to  us  and  tell  us  and 
show  us  by  your  life  and  ministry  with  us  what  Christ  expects  of  us. 
That  is  a  tall  order.  I  wish  you  Godspeed. 


The  Eclipse  of  God  and  the 
Vocation  of  Godliness 

OPENING  CONVOCATION  ADDRESS,  1966 
Robert  E.  Cushman 

As  the  Divinity  School  community  reassembles,  I  have  a  text 
for  the  day  and,  perhaps,  for  the  year.  It  is  St.  Paul's  admonition 
to  the  Ephesians:  "Put  on  the  whole  armor  of  God,  that  ye  may 
be  able  to  stand  against  the  wiles  of  the  devil  ....  and  having  done 
all,  to  stand."  But  before  "opening"  this  text,  I  do  wish  to  exercise 
a  dean's  high  privilege  of  welcoming  one  and  all  to  the  society  of 
this  school  and  to  invite  each  of  you  to  grasp  the  opportunities  of 
another  year  for  the  perfecting  of  our  common  vocation.  We  are 
glad  to  have  returning  faculty,  lately  on  leave,  restored  to  us.  To 
new  members  of  the  faculty  who  join  our  ranks  we  express  our 
earnest  wish  that  you  may  shortly  come  to  feel  at  home,  and  we  as- 
sure you  that  we  shall  be  looking  to  you  for  new  vision  and  leader- 
ship in  the  burden  and  heat  of  the  days  of  our  years  that  lie  ahead. 

To  returning  students,  we  commend  what  has  been  well  accom- 
plished and  look  to  larger  and  riper  fulfillment  for  you  in  the  days 
ahead.  To  entering  students,  we  extend  the  same  warm  welcome  we 
have  extended  to  your  predecessors.  You  are  not  the  first  class  for 
which  the  faculty  has  cherished  high  expectations.  It  is  always  this 
way !  However  the  faculty  may  stand  with  reference  to  the  three 
cardinal  Christian  virtues,  they  are  unfailing  in  hope  regarding  their 
students  however  much  their  faith  and  love  may  have  been  recurrent- 
ly and  sorely  tried.  Although  chastened  by  the  years — some  of  them 
with  more  years  than  others — they  join  me  in  giving  you  hearty  wel- 
come. Together,  I  believe,  we  offer  the  assurance  that,  while  the 
road  to  intellectual  and  spiritual  integration  is  uphill  all  the  way, 
these  years  can  be  unparalleled  opportunity  to  possess  one's  soul, 
as  well  as  to  clear  one's  mind  and  acquire  relevance ! 

So,  we  welcome  one  and  all  today  in  this  our  opening  convoca- 
tion. It  is  a  tradition  with  us  to  celebrate  in  the  presence  of  God 
the  reassembly  of  the  Divinity  School  community.  It  is  a  community 
of  seekers  and  scholars,  of  study  and  research,  of  teaching  and  learn- 
ing and,  of  course,  as  much  as  possible  of  "dialogue" !  It  is  also  a 


194 

community  of  self-discipline,  of  mutual  chastening,  and  some  dis- 
illusionment. It  is  a  community  that  endeavors  to  dismantle  idols 
and  dissolve  obstructions,  not  alone  to  a  better  apprehension  of  the 
living  God,  but  to  a  timely  obedience  of  Him.  Indeed,  as  a  communi- 
ty of  Christian  faith,  it  has  always  been  committed  to  the  paradox 
that  clearer  apprehension  of  God  waits  upon  willing  obedience  toward 
God.  Still,  it  is  also  true  that  this  is  a  community  where  faith  is  ever 
seeking  larger  understanding.  Hopefully,  it  may  be  made  unto  us 
a  place  of  vision  and  an  auditory  of  prophecy,  yet  it  should  become 
not  too  much  a  sanctuary  but  always  a  point  of  departure,  for  it  is 
only  by  reponse  to  the  Divine  Summons  (amidst  the  urgent  actuali- 
ties of  our  time)  that  the  vision  of  God  is  kept  in  focus  and  fades 
not  away.  It  is  only  in  doing  the  Truth  that  we  can  keep  on  knowing 
it.  God  is  always  fading  to  vision  in  the  measure  we  are  disre- 
garding and  blunting  his  imperatives.  Is  this  not  the  principal  sick- 
ness of  much  Christianity  in  our  time ;  i.e.,  that  it  is  not  "obedient  to 
the  heavenly  vision"  ? 

II 

This  leads  me  to  say  then,  no,  rather  affirm,  that  this  community 
we  reassemble  today  is  a  community  committed  to  the  everlasting 
relevance  of  what  Second  Peter  commends  and  calls  "godliness." 
He  does  not  come  wide  of  the  mark  either,  respecting  the  proper 
aim  and  purpose  of  theological  education,  when  he  enjoins  us  to 
give  "diligence  to  make  our  calling  and  election  sure"  (II  Pet.,  1 :10). 
The  nature  of  this  he  describes :  "In  your  faith,"  he  says,  "supply 
virtue;  and  in  your  virtue  knowledge  (that  is  the  right  order!)  ;  and 
in  your  knowledge  self-control ;  and  in  your  self-control  patience ;  and 
in  your  patience  godliness ;  and  in  your  godliness  brotherly  kindness ; 
and  in  your  brotherly  kindness  love."  (vv.  5-7). 

The  calling  and  election  of  Christians  then  is  godliness,  and  the 
substance  and  sign  of  godliness  is  love.  This  community  is  commit- 
ted to  the  nurture  and  advancement  of  such  a  vocation.  But  godli- 
ness and  the  world,  at  least  as  the  world  represents  itself,  do  not  seem 
to  have  much  in  common.  From  the  standpoint  of  the  world,  godli- 
ness seems  to  have  decreasing  pertinence.  In  a  world  which  allegedly 
"has  come  of  age,"  godliness  seems  more  and  more  like  a  Quixotic 
archaism  or  a  quaint  survival  of  mainly  antiquarian  interest.  There 
are  some  indications  that  godliness  appears  to  be  a  decliningly  ex- 
citing vocation  to  the  young.  Some  who  once  espoused  it  do  not  know 


195 

what  to  do  with  it.  And  potential  aspirants,  seeking  their  way  and 
positive  usefulness  of  life  in  today's  world,  are  hesitant  to  invest 
their  future  in  what  appears  to  be  a  vocation  of  diminishing  influence, 
prestige,  or  reward. 

How  can  the  advancement  of  godliness  greatly  attract  by  com- 
parison with  other  vocational  lures  whose  incentives  are  often  im- 
mediate and  spectacular  and  have  assurance  of  a  far  "better  press" 
even  in  so-called  religious  publications?  And  what  is  advancement 
of  godliness  in  an  age  that  plainly  measures  achievement  by  precision 
"linkups"  of  a  Gemini  II  with  an  orbiting  satellite  only  half  a  second 
off  calculated  rendezvous  in  space  and  time?  What  is  godliness  in 
comparison  with  return  "on  target"  from  a  million  miles  of  ellipses 
in  outer  space? 

From  Bacon  to  Marx,  and  from  Marx  to  the  present,  it  seems 
to  be  the  mastery  of  space,  man's  place  in  the  cosmos,  which  headlines 
the  overwhelming  aspiration  of  our  time.  Technology  and  social 
control  are  the  instruments ;  government  and  industry  are  the  agents, 
and  medical  science  (with  the  aid  of  both)  may  be  credited  with 
an  "assist"  in  improving  and  extending  man's  time-occupancy  of 
space.  What  need  have  we  for  more  in  a  world  "come  of  age"? 
Moreover,  as  has  been  said,  "music  hath  charms  to  sooth  the  savage 
breast"  and  even  professors  of  church  history  may  possess  themselves 
of  precision  instruments  unsurpassed  for  surveying  the  medium  that 
tranquilizes  the  passions  and  may  yet  probe  even  "the  music  of 
the  spheres"!  And  all  of  us  have  transportation!  The  poorest  stu- 
dent may  have  to  "bum  a  ride".  But  man's  place  is  manageable !  The 
future  seems  open  to  our  freedom.  What  need  we  more! 

Ill 

On  the  very  same  day  and  the  very  same  front  page  that  carried 
exultant  news  of  the  precision  rendezvous  in  outer  space,  I  read  the 
following  account,  not  of  what  men  are  planning,  but  of  what  some 
men  are  doing : 

Grenada,  Miss.  (AP)  September  12,  1966 — "A  throng  of  angry 
whites  wielding  ax  handles,  pipes  and  chains  surrounded  two  public 
schools  that  were  integrated  Monday  and  attacked  Negroes  who 
attempted  to  leave  when  classes  were  over.  A  Negro  youth,  12,  ran 
a  gauntlet  of  cursing  whites  for  a  full  block,  his  face  bleeding,  his 
clothes  torn.  He  finally  escaped  limping.  Another  boy  was  not  so 
fortunate.  As  he  tried  to  leave  the  school  grounds,  he  was  thrown 


196 

to  the  sidewalk,  kicked  and  beaten.  'That'll  teach  you,  nigger,'  yelled 
one  white  man.  'Don't  come  back  tomorrow.'  The  boy  answered,  'I 
didn't  want  to  come  here  anyway.  My  mother  sent  me.'  'You  tell 
her  if  you  come  back  tomorrow,  she'll  be  a  dead  nigger,'  the  man 
responded.  A  city  policeman  who  witnessed  the  violence  made  no 
move  to  help  the  boy."  The  article  continues :  "Men  did  all  the  beat- 
ing, but  many  women  were  present  cursing  and  yelling."  And  we 
are  further  informed :  "About  two  hours  after  the  white  children 
left,  the  Negro  children  were  taken  out  in  groups  of  25  led  by  the 
Sheriff.  Two  highway  patrol  cars  escorted  the  students  down  back 
streets  in  columns  of  twos  to  the  Bell  Flower  Church,  about  one  mile 
away.  The  church  is  the  headquarters  for  civil  rights  groups  who  be- 
came active  this  summer  in  Grenada  when  Dr.  Martin  Luther  King 
held  a  voter  registration  drive  here." 

This  happened  last  week  in  a  society  premised  upon  better  things 
like :  liberty  of  conscience  and  the  declaration  "We  hold  these  truths 
to  be  self-evident,  that  all  men  are  endowed  by  their  creator  with 
the  inalienable  right  to  life,  liberty  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness." 
These  may  be  divine  endowments,  but  the  history  of  man's  way  with 
man  has  been  more  nearly  one  of  frustrating  this  inalienable  heritage. 
As  for  liberty  of  conscience,  the  current  temper  is  more  nearly  liberty 
■without  conscience. 

Ours  is  a  fearful  and  dismaying  society.  On  Christian  premises 
it  does  not  show  much  promise  of  being  a  great  one.  It  has  largely 
forsaken  its  originative  principles  in  the  interest  of  the  power  of  self- 
maintenance.  Its  true  greatness  is  probably  behind  it.  In  one  day  it  can 
bring  off  a  stunning  technological  feat  in  outer  space — a  rendezvous 
one-half  second  off  calculated  time  at  20,000  miles  per  hour.  Simul- 
taneously, in  a  town  below — a  town  we  may  suppose  long  familiar 
but  evidently  heedless  both  of  Law  and  Gospel — grown  men  attack 
children  with  clubs  and  chains  because  the  children  are  black.  Wom- 
en curse  and  yell,  and,  with  murderous  threats,  some  shout  "nigger." 
And  there  is  only  one  frail  center  and  sanctuary,  the  Bell  Flower 
Church !  It  is  not  the  First  Methodist  Church,  or  the  Second  Baptist 
Church,  or  the  Third  Presbyterian  Church,  or  St.  Mary's  of  the 
Sacred  Heart.  It  is  just  the  Bell  Flower  Church — anonymous  with 
men  but  not  with  God ;  and  it  stands  a  wistful  and  beleaguered 
sentinel  to  a  godliness  that  evidently  is  uncomprehended  in  Grenada 
or  is  deemed  passe  and  irrelevant. 


197 

IV 

There  are  several  ways  to  "will"  the  death  of  God.  A  minor  one, 
and  least  blasphemous,  is  to  proclaim  with  the  fervor  of  a  new  messiah 
the  sacred  "gospel  of  Christian  atheism";  to  affirm  absolute  con- 
tradiction under  the  high  sounding  rubric  of  coincidentia  oppositorum 
whereby  the  total  negation  of  "the  Christian  God"  is  said  to  prepare 
an  "epiphany"  of  some  greater  but  unnamed  splendor.  The  idea 
here  is  to  negate  the  sacred  and  will  the  profane  so  that  the  sacred 
may  appear.  More  serious  far  and  more  deceptive  are  the  common 
and  age-old  idolatries,  whereby  men  worship  and  serve,  as  St.  Paul 
■declared,  the  creatures  rather  than  the  Creator ;  and  there  is  good 
reason  to  surmise  that  the  brash  gospels  of  "Christian  atheism"  are 
but  ingenious  rationalizations  of  the  prevailing  idolatries  of  our  epoch. 

But  the  greatest  blasphemy  of  all,  in  which  we  all  participate  in 
our  several  ways,  times  and  measures,  is  to  live  and  behave  overtly 
as  if  God  were  in  fact  dead.  So  far  as  I  can  see,  the  men  and  women 
of  Grenada,  of  whom  we  have  report,  do  in  fact  will  the  death  of 
God  in  their  deeds.  If  we  are  to  heed  the  gospel  of  Christian  atheism, 
then  Grenada  really  shows  us  how.  And,  lest  we  miss  the  "beam 
in  our  own  eye,"  we  may  ponder  the  likelihood  that  the  frenzied 
outburst  of  Grenada  is  but  a  public  manfestation  of  the  festering 
guilt  of  a  whole  unrepented  people.  For  is  not  the  barbarism  of 
Grenada  the  ugly  exhibition  of  an  endemic  depravity  that,  despite 
its  claims  to  conventional  piety,  unveils  a  secret  preference  to  be 
done  with  God?  And,  further,  it  is  just  possible  that  the  final  course 
open  to  the  intransigently  impenitent  is  precisely  the  denial  of  God, 
for  to  will  the  death  of  God  seems  to  promise  freedom  from  the  in- 
tolerable burden  of  guilt.  As  Nietzsches  Zarathustra  said,  "If  God 
is  dead,  all  things  are  permitted."  Then  guilt  would  be  robbed  of 
its  meaning  and  thus  shorn  of  its  disruptive  power.  "Situation  ethics," 
too,  would  have  carte  blanche.  It  would  no  more  be  embarrassed  by  the 
Divine  antecedence  and  such  priorities  as  set  limits  to  the  allowable. 

Thus,  we  may  suppose,  ungodliness  relishes  the  "new  freedom" 
of  the  death  of  God,  indeed  proclaims  it  to  the  purpose,  and  glories 
in  a  "coincidence  of  opposites"  whereby  men  may  call  good  evil,  and 
evil  good.  For  Isaiah  this  is  the  ultimate  perversity  and,  for  Plato, 
it  is  "the  lie  in  the  soul."  Yet,  in  various  forms,  it  is  offered  to  us 
as  the  way,  the  truth  and  the  life.  In  the  theology  of  "coincidence  of 
opposites"  we  are  assured  that  "the  very  profane  Existens  which 
our  destiny  has  unveiled  may  yet  prove  to  be  a  path  to  a  universal 


198 

form  of  faith"  (T.  J.  J.  Altizer  in  Radical  Theology  and  the  Death  of 
God,  p.  20).  Let  us  will  ungodliness,  then,  that  godliness  may  be 
revealed.  Let  us  sin  that  grace  may  abound!  In  the  history  of  philo- 
sophic literature,  save  one,  there  is  hardly  an  instance  of  such  frenzy ! 

V 

But  setting  aside  this  extremity  of  hybris,  this  community  de- 
voted to  the  nurture  of  godliness  is  in  fact  confronted  with  a  pervasive 
spirit  of  ungodliness.  Here,  a  vocation  is  cultivated  for  which  there 
is  but  modest  comprehension  and  but  passing  and  vagrant  interest 
in  the  world  without.  With  soberness,  we  may  listen  to  Martin  Buber 
when  he  writes :  "Eclipse  of  the  light  of  heaven,  eclipse  of  God — such 
indeed  is  the  character  of  the  historic  hour  through  which  the  world 
is  passing."  (The  Eclipse  of  God.  Harper  Torchbook,  p.  23).  And 
E.  W.  Shideler  in  his  brilliant  analysis,  "Taking  the  Death  of  God 
Seriously"  may  well  be  right  in  saying  that  "Insofar  as  this  theology 
describes  an  audience  to  which  the  Gospel  must  be  declared,  we  can 
take  it  with  complete  seriousness."  (Theology  Today,  July  1966, 
p.  187).  He  is  utterly  perceptive  in  the  telling  criticism  that  this 
so-called  radical  theology  "is  more  than  a  diagnosis."  It  has  the 
astonishing  character  of  a  "prescription  which  offers  the  disease  as 
the  cure."  (Ibid.) 

But  what  shall  we  say  to  these  things?  One  way  to  get  to  the 
heart  of  the  issue  between  the  Christian  believer  and  the  current 
"Gospel  of  the  profane"  is,  first,  to  recognize  that  an  unequal  marriage 
between  Christianity  and  culture  (which  has  been  the  bane  of  re- 
ligion in  the  South)  has  always  meant  a  capitulation  to  the  profane 
on  the  part  of  Christians  despite  pious  protests  to  the  contrary.  It 
has  actually  been  a  betrayal  of  Christianity,  for  it  has  resolved  the 
perpetual  and  inevitable  tension  between  Christianity  and  culture  by 
accommodation  of  the  former  to  the  latter.  That  is  why  Grenada 
and  Selma  are  possible. 

The  second  point  is  this :  Christians  have  always  to  face  the 
dilemma  which  confronts  the  believer  ever  since  their  Lord  prayed 
for  his  disciples  that  they  be  in  the  world  as  the  vehicles  of  God's 
love  for  the  world  but  always  so  as  to  be  preserved  from  the  evil 
that  is  in  the  world.  Thus,  Jesus  prays  for  divine  support  for  a 
radically  dialectical  life  of  unending  tension  and  constant  stress. 
Authentic  Christian  life  is  being  in  the  world  and  for  the  world  but 
not  of  the  world.  Our  Lord  knew  that  this  was  an  impossible  voca- 


199 

tion  without  the  divine  Comforter.  For  it  is  a  life  in  continual  tempta- 
tion. Specifically,  it  is  under  temptation  to  resolve  the  vexing  dialecti- 
cal tension  either  by  sundry  accommodations  to  the  world  or,  con- 
versely, by  radical  denial  and  flight  from  the  world.  Since  Kierke- 
gaard's attack  on  Christendom,  it  has  been  widely  recognized  that 
much  "official  Christianity"  tends  to  resolve  the  dialectic  tension  by 
easy  accommodation  to  the  world.  This  made  slavery  possible,  and 
makes  integration  tedious.  In  this  role,  Christianity  is  already  half 
profane. 

Relaxation  of  the  tension  may  be  accomplished,  on  the  contrary, 
by  flight,  or  withdrawal.  Flight  is  represented  by  some  varieties  of 
cloistered  quietism  or  ecstatic  gospelism.  Withdrawal  may  be  rep- 
resented by  some  forms  of  monasticism,  high-church  sacerdotalism, 
clericalism,  or  by  preoccupation  and  almost  obsession  with  the  struc- 
tures of  churchy  associations  and  program.  This  last  may  be  called 
institutionalism.  It  is  a  characteristic  malaise  of  modern  Protestant- 
ism. 

It  was  to  this  latter  group  of  aberrations — resolving  the  authentic 
tension  and  dialectic  of  the  Christian  life — that  Dietrich  Bonhoefifei 
has  been  heard  to  speak  by  so  many  disturbed  and  thoughtful  youth 
of  our  time  when  he  allowed  "that  the  church  has  fought  for  self- 
preservation  as  though  it  were  an  end  in  itself."  (Letters  and  Papers 
from  Prison.  Macmillan,  p.  187.) 

Bonhoeffer's  "religionless"  Christianity,  which  has  captured  the 
imagination  of  honest  Christian  discontent,  is  really  a  protest  against 
the  illicit,  unauthorized,  and  escapist  relaxation  of  the  radical,  un- 
ending dialectic  of  authentic  Christian  existence,  namely,  existence 
for  God  in  the  world,  for  the  world,  but  never  of  the  world.  This 
Bonhoeffer  was  groping  to  affirm  in  declaring,  "It  is  not  some  re- 
ligious act"  (I  would  add  quietistic,  ecstatic,  sacerdotal  or  house- 
keeping) "which  makes  a  Christian  what  he  is,  but  participation  in 
the  suffering  of  God  in  the  life  of  the  world."  (Ibid.,  p.  223). 

Again,  on  the  other  hand,  there  is  the  release  of  authentic  tension 
in  the  Christian  life  by  acculturation,  the  accommodation  of  Christ  to 
culture.  Thus,  the  pervasive  secularism  of  our  day  is  in  part  attribut- 
able to  the  pseudo-godliness  of  a  host  of  Christians  who  want  Chris- 
tianity without  tension,  that  is,  consolation  without  service  and 
privilege  without  responsibility.  Nothing  has  become  plainer  than 
that  this  cannot  muster  as  Christianity  at  all.  It  is  very  close  to 
capitulation  to  the  world.  At  the  best,  it  is  heretical  Christianity. 


200 

It  is  close,  perilously  close,  to  affirmation  of  our  profane  Existens. 
Why,  then,  should  churchmen  be  so  shocked  when  reckless  theological 
opportunism  proposes  to  be  honest  and  go  the  whole  way?  True,  it 
prescribes  the  disease  as  the  cure,  but  after  all,  there  is  truth  in  the 
claim  that  God  has  died  in  our  history  insofar  as  Christians  have  eased 
the  dialectical  tension  of  authentic  godliness  in  accommodating  the  rig- 
ors of  the  Christian  life  to  the  prevailing  culture.  If  "the  eclipse  of  God" 
is,  as  Buber  says,  "the  character  of  the  historic  hour  through  which 
the  world  is  passing,"  then  to  the  door  of  pious  but  irresponsible  and 
impenitent  Christians  partial  blame  is  rightly  laid.  It  is  laid  at  the 
doorstep  of  Grenada,  and  Grenada  is  potentially  most  anywhere.  For 
just  insofar  as  Christians  claim  the  privileges  of  faith  without  accept- 
ing responsibility,  for  participating  in  Christ's  sufferings  in  and  for 
the  world,  they  have  not  added  to  patience  godliness,  and  to  godliness 
love.  Indeed,  the  "patience"  which  adds  godliness  is  just  exactly  suf- 
fering. It  is  suffering  with  Christ  for  the  redemption  of  the  world. 

On  the  other  hand,  tragic,  cheap  and  self-destroying,  I  think, 
is  the  brash  capitulation  to  the  world :  the  espousal  of  profane  Exis- 
tenz;  the  frenzied  world-affirmation  that  looks  for  salvation  in  the 
denial  of  God  and  enjoins  it ;  that  glories  to  embrace  the  "Antichrist" 
as  man's  hopes,  and  warns  oracularly  that  "Apart  from  free  accep- 
tance of  the  death  of  God,  there  lies  no  way  to  our  profane  present." 
(T.  J.  J.  Altizer,  op.  cit.,  p.  20). 

To  the  pagan  Socrates  this  would  appear  the  abyss  of  human  evil, 
for  it  has  lost  all  sense  of  aidos,  shame.  To  resign  one's  self  to  atheism 
is  one  thing,  and,  one  may  suppose,  the  ultimate  sorrow  open  to  our 
humanity.  To  will  atheism,  on  the  other  hand,  to  embrace  the  death 
of  God  with  rapture  has,  from  the  Greeks  been  regarded  as  "titanism" 
verging  upon  lunacy.  This  let  not  even  The  Christian  Advocate  ask 
me  to  take  seriously  as  an  issue  for  sober  theological  reflection.  It 
has  gone  beyond  the  pale  of  presuppositions  and  premises  of  which, 
for  my  part,  I  can  take  respectful  heed.  It  partakes  of  the  ultimate 
perversity  that  calls  evil  good  and  good  evil.  It  is  the  radical  "trans- 
valuation  of  values"  fathered  by  Nietzsche  but  without  even  the  re- 
serve of  Nietzsche's  irony  or  the  misery  of  his  divided  mind. 

Yet  we  must  face  the  eclipse  of  God  in  our  time.  It  is  both  the 
absence  of  something  positive  and  the  presence  of  something  negative. 
It  is  a  lassitude,  a  failure  of  nerve,  a  loss  of  confidence,  a  creeping 
paralysis.  It  is  the  dispirited  waiting  for  "Godot."  Men  look  for  God 
but  do  not  know  where  to  look  that  they  may  find  him.  The  Word 


201 

is  not  easily  heard  among  us.  It  does  not  resound  in  our  time.  There 
is  only  the  strife  of  many  words  and  the  confusion  of  strident  tongues. 
Philosophy  is  busy  with  words  about  words  or  can  only  speak  of 
human  "self-understanding"  bracketed  off  from  any  transcendent 
reference.  Without  such  a  reference  there  is  no  way  to  break  up  the 
overwhelming  plurality  and  incomprehensible  continuum  of  our  hu- 
man existence  and  restore  to  it  meaning  and  verve  by  the  rediscovery 
of  a  hierarchy  of  significance  or  a  scale  of  commanding  priorities.  In 
our  world  there  is  nothing  prior  but  the  incessant  jangling  of  con- 
flicting claims. 

In  short,  human  existence  has  flattened  out  into  insignificance 
for  many,  and  it  is  hard  to  say  whether  it  is  flat  because  of  God's 
absence  or  God  is  absent  because  it  is  flat.  Meanwhile,  the  frenzy  to 
enhance  man's  occupancy  of  space  escalates  as  perhaps  the  remain- 
ing distraction  still  open  to  us  against  the  onset  of  pervasive  societal 
boredom.  This  is  the  world,  I  think,  as  it  has  "come  of  age,"  and, 
to  keep  the  figure,  it  may  be  a  world  in  the  advanced  stages  of  senili- 
ty. It  could  even  be  that  western  society  even  now  is  the  Tower  of 
Babel  "writ  large."  It  is  no  wonder  then  that  Professor  Shideler 
should  conclude:  "If  God  is  dead  it  is  because  some  lesser  myth 
has  come  to  be  adequate  to  sustain  and  to  create  a  smaller  (I  would 
say  flatter)  kind  of  human  life  than  that  which  is  declared  and  given 
in  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ."  (Op.  cit.,  p.  199).  Flat  worlds, 
we  might  say,  must  make  do  with  flat  myths ! 

VI 

I  do  not  know  that  the  thread  of  these  reflections  is  visible  enough 
to  clarify  to  us  the  vocation  of  godliness  or  that  it  sharpens  the  claim 
of  that  vocation  to  relevance  and  more  respectful  consideration  by 
a  secular  world.  How  it  may  appear  to  the  secular  world  is  not, 
after  all,  the  test  that  interests  me  today.  The  question  is  rather 
more,  what  do  I  see  and  what  may  you  perceive  about  this  vocation 
and  the  propriety  and  right  of  its  claim  upon  us? 

If  it  is  true,  and  it  apparently  is,  that  we  live  in  an  age  of  an 
"eclipse"  of  God,  the  Christian  should  be  among  the  last,  along  with 
his  Jewish  brethren,  to  be  taken  by  surprise.  Long  ago,  the  Christian 
was  warned  to  "put  on  the  whole  armor  of  God  that  he  might  be  able 
to  stand  in  the  evil  day,"  but  Christians  have  not  taken  the  true 
measure  of  the  enemy.  Instead,  they  have  been  demythologizing 
"the  world  rulers  of  this  darkness  and  the  spiritual  hosts  of  wicked- 


202 

ness  in  heavenly  places,"  which  could  be  pre-eminently  themselves. 
Furthermore,  not  attaining  to  the  "full  grown  man,  unto  the  measure 
of  the  stature  of  the  fullness  of  Christ,"  they  do  not  escape  being 
"tossed  to  and  fro  and  carried  about  with  every  wind  of  doctrine" 
(Eph.,  4:13  ff.).  So  it  is  that  we  are  all  suffering  from  pseudo- 
Christianity,  our  own  and  much  of  that  lately  pervading  the  churches, 
although  I  think  the  tide  is  turning.  But,  contrary  to  Jesus'  caution 
to  his  disciples,  we  have  been  bred  in  a  Christianity  that  did  not 
count  the  cost  of  building  a  tower  and  are  dismayed  that  now  all 
who  behold  the  unfinished  structure  begin  to  mock  us."  (Lk.  14:28). 
In  our  confusion  one  way  to  cover  is,  of  course,  to  join  in  the  laughter 
and  affirm  our  profane  Existens,  concealing  thereby  our  chagrin 
under  the  "great  lie"  of  the  "coincidence  of  opposites,"  that  is,  let 
us  now  affirm  the  sacred  by  exalting  the  profane! 

The  Christian  answer  and  with  it  the  Christian  vocation  of  god- 
liness is  somewhat  more  subtle,  infinitely  more  difficult  and  not 
contradictio  ad  absurdum.  It  forcefully  rejects  otherworldly  retreat. 
It  espouses  the  wisdom  of  God  which  is  wiser  than  men.  It  takes 
up  the  hard  and  repulsive  vocation  of  participating  in  the  sufferings 
of  Christ  for  the  world — for  man's  liberation  from  bondage  to  the 
fiat  world  of  unrelieved  insignificance  in  which  nothing  is  false  be- 
cause everything  is  true  and  all  things  are  permitted.  It  does  this 
because  it  is  overpowered  by  the  hint  and  sign  of  a  transcendent 
reference  in  the  adorable  majesty  of  the  self-evidencing  goodness 
of  Jesus  Christ.  He  is  made  unto  the  Christian,  in  the  foolishness 
of  God,  wisdom — the  inescapable  ground  of  faith,  hope  and  love.  He 
becomes  the  norm  of  human  significance,  who  gives  illumination  and 
structure  to  the  flat-world  from  a  fulcrum  beyond  the  flat-world. 
The  Christian  lives  and  serves  under  the  vocation  of  Christ  Jesus 
as  the  only  vocation  that  can  affirm  the  world  and  restore  the  world 
without  succumbing  to  the  flatness  of  the  world.  It  is  a  vocation  of 
incomparable  difficulty  and  irresoluble  tension  and  is  supportable 
only  insofar  as  the  Christian  is  rooted  deep  in  a  wider  reality  of 
which  the  flat  world  is  a  dependent  derivative. 

I  know  that,  at  what  must  be  the  end  of  this  discourse,  I  have 
introduced  the  real  theological  problem,  the  issue  of  transcendence 
which  has  been  "in  the  wings"  all  along.  This  is  the  vexing  problem 
of  more  than  a  century  of  theology,  and  there  is  much  more  honest 
work  to  be  done  about  it.  But  let  us  be  clear,  if  the  so-called  profane 
world  exhausts  the  range  of  Being,  then  there  is  no  vocation  of  god- 


203 

liness,  as  the  apostles  of  profanity  have  flatly  affirmed;  and  this 
school  has  no  further  reason  for  being.  If,  on  the  contrary,  existence 
is  but  a  segment  of  the  total  continuum  of  Being,  then  existence  need 
not  be  flat  and  empty,  without  limit.  In  due  time  indeed  in  God's 
good  time,  it  will  reopen  to  the  fullness  of  Being  which  is  its  source 
and  ground  and  fulfillment.  With  such  an  openness,  godliness  be- 
comes again  a  vocation.  But  the  decision  is  ours ;  it  is  man's ;  our  age 
is  in  the  crisis  of  decision.  I  agree  with  Martin  Buber:  "He  who  re- 
fuses to  submit  himself  to  the  effective  reality  of  the  transcendence 
as  such — our  vis-a-vis — contributes  to  the  human  responsibility 
for  the  eclipse  (of  God)  {Op.  cit.,  p.  24). 

For  today,  the  vocation  of  godliness  is,  above  all,  openness  to 
transcendence.  That  includes  prayer.  It  is  also  participation  with 
Christ  in  his  sufferings  for  the  world.  The  way  of  Openness  and 
participation  is  the  secret  of  the  godly  life.  It  is  to  this  life  that  this 
Divinity  School  is  irrevocably  committed.  Today  openness  and 
participation  are  the  pressing  meanings  of  obedience,  and  it  is  upon 
this  obedience  to  God  that  depends  a  clearer  apprehension  of  God — 
by  us  in  our  day  and  by  any  men  in  any  day. 

Members  of  the  entering  class,  I  offer  you  a  seasoned  conviction  : 
the  vocation  of  godliness  today  is  still  open  to  all  of  us.  It  is  what 
it  always  has  been  from  Abraham  until  now:  It  is  openness  to  trans- 
cendence. It  is  also,  since  Christ,  participation  with  him  in  his  abso- 
lute affirmation  of  the  world — not  the  world  in  its  flight  from  God, 
but  the  world  in  the  intent  and  purpose  of  God  for  it. 


Anxiety,  Courage  and  Truth 

William  H.  Poteat 

Professor  of  Qiristianity  and  Culture 

Graham  Greene,  whose  sensibility  can  discern  intimations  of 
something  sinister  in  even  the  quiet  movement  behind  him  of  a 
rabbit,  in  the  dark,  on  the  croquet  lawn  of  an  English  public  school, 
tells  in  an  autobiographical  essay,  "The  Lost  Childhood,"  of  his  loss 
of  innocence  forever  in  the  discovery  one  summer  that  he  could  read. 

There  then  opened  before  him  the  whole  universe  of  literature. 
"All  a  long  summer  holiday  I  kept  my  secret,  as  I  believed :  I  did 
not  want  anybody  to  know  that  I  could  read.  I  suppose  I  half  con- 
sciously realized  even  then  that  this  was  the  dangerous  moment." 

First  there  was  Ryder  Haggard's  King  Solomon's  Mines  and  the 
evil  sorceress,  Gagool :  "Didn't  she  wait  for  me  in  dreams  every 
night  in  the  passage  by  the  linen  cupboard,  near  the  nursery  door? 
And  she  continues  to  wait,  when  the  mind  is  sick  or  tired,  though 
now  she  is  dressed  in  the  theological  garments  of  despair." 

Later,  it  was  Elizabeth  Bowen's  The  Viper  of  Milan:  "At  the 
end.  .  .  della  Scala  is  dead,  Ferrara,  Verona,  Novara,  Mantua  have 
all  fallen,  the  messengers  pour  in  with  news  of  fresh  victories,  the 
whole  world  outside  is  cracking  up,  and  Visconti  sits  and  jokes  in 
the  wine  light.  ...  (I  learned)  in  Miss  Bowen's  novel  the  sense 
of  doom  that  lies  over  success — the  feeling  that  the  pendulum  is  about 
to  swing.  That  too  made  sense;  one  looked  around  and  saw  the 
doomed  everywhere — the  champion  runner  who  one  day  would  sag 
over  the  tape;  the  head  of  the  school  who  would  atone,  poor  devil, 
during  forty  dreary  undistinguished  years ;  the  scholar.  .  .  and  when 
success  began  to  touch  oneself  too,  however  mildly,  one  could  only 
pray  that  failure  would  not  be  held  off  for  too  long." 

This  reminds  one  of  a  reality  too  hastily  suppressed  in  the  modern 
climate  of  the  mind,  so  much  a  creature  of  science,  technology  and 
the  optimism  they  breed :  the  radical  connection  between  anxiety, 
courage  and  the  achievement  of  truth. 

The  modern  age  was  ushered  in  by  the  Baconian  motto :  Knowl- 
edge is  power.  It  has  been  deeply  underwritten  in  our  whole  sensi- 
bility by  even  that  most  theoretical  of  men,   Rene   Descartes,   the 


205 

so-called  "father  of  modern  philosophy"  who  wanted  to  start  from 
scratch  by  thinking  out  everything  clearly  while  sitting  in  a  stove! 

For  us  knowledge  tends  to  be  associated  with  heroism  and  un- 
qualified beatitude.  Everywhere  in  our  imagination  there  rises  up 
from  its  depths  the  belief  that  man  is  saved,  not  damned,  by  knowl- 
edge and  by  standing  in  the  truth. 

On  hundreds  of  American  campuses  there  are  buildings  upon 
which  have  been  engraved,  snatched  wholly  from  their  profounder 
context,  the  words:  "Ye  shall  know  the  truth  and  the  truth  shall 
make  you  free."  Upon  seeing  them,  my  natural  rejoinder  is :  "The 
Hell  it  does."  In  the  context  of  compulsive  modern  optimism  these 
words  lose  all  sense  of  paradox. 

Our  universities  and  the  Great  Society  spend  millions  of  man- 
hours,  billions  of  dollars  in  uncritical  support  of  this  belief. 

Yet — it  has  not  always  been  held,  nor  is  it  true. 

A  deeper  human  sensibility  has  known  that  truth  is  not  only 
won  at  a  price,  but  painful  when  won ;  that  knowledge  is  always  an 
ambiguous  good,  concealing  a  threat;  that  catastrophe  is  associated 
with  the  loss  of  innocence. 

Recognition  of  this  may  be  absent  from  our  public  myth,  but  in 
our  private  struggle  with  ourselves  and  our  world  it's  there.  It's 
always  there,  even  when  it  has  no  name. 

There  are  three  great  myths  in  our  tradition  in  which  the  link 
between  catastrophe  and  the  loss  of  innocence  is  embodied.  The  myth 
of  Oedipus,  the  myth  of  Adam  and  the  myth  of  Faust. 

In  the  very  name  of  Oedipus,  the  whole  story  is  compactly  told. 
Oedipus  means  "the  swollen  footed" — a  name  conferred  upon  the 
son  of  Laius  because  of  the  permanent  scars  left  on  his  ankles  by  the 
leather  straps  by  which  his  legs  were  bound  together  when  he,  an 
infant,  had  been  left  upon  a  hill  to  die.  There  is  a  profound  pun  in 
the  name.  Pus  means  foot  and,  taken  with  the  riddle  of  the  sphinx 
(what  is  it  that  walks  on  four  jeet  in  the  morning,  two  feet  at  noon 
and  three  feet  at  night),  suggests  that  Oedipus'  very  herosim  is 
bound  up  with  the  image  of  the  being  who  walks.  But  this  is  yet 
another  pun,  for  oida — swollen — suggests  there  is  something  basical- 
ly "unnatural"  in  the  creature  who  has  the  power  to  walk  upright. 
Even  more,  the  verb  oido,  in  one  of  its  meanings,  is  defined  as :  to 
be  swollen  with  knowledge.  And  we  know  that  Oedipus  was  swollen 
with  knowledge,  not  only  possessed  of  the  power  of  reason  by  which 


206 

he  is  enabled  to  answer  the  riddle  of  the  sphinx,  but  proudly  possessed 
of  it,  swollen  with  it — again,  "unnaturally"  so. 

It  is  by  the  power  of  reason  that  Oedipus  is  able  to  destroy  the 
Sphinx,  that  beast  part  bird,  part  lion  and  part  woman,  which  sym- 
bolized for  the  ancient  world  all  the  dark,  irrational,  nameless  and 
inhuman  terrors  that  threaten  man.  This  he  does  by  answering  the 
riddle  into  which  is  compactly  built  a  profoundly  disturbing  image 
of  the  greatness  ("what  it  is  that  walks?")  and  the  ultimate  tran- 
siency (morning,  noon  and  night)  of  human  life.  He  answers:  Man! 
And  at  a  stroke  he  exhibits  the  power  of  human  reason  to  plumb 
the  secret  of  human  life  and  finds  that  painful  secret  to  be  human 
mortality.  Swollen  with  proud  knowledge,  he  assails  the  riddle  and 
discovers  the  tragic  truth  about  existence.  The  loss  of  innocence 
leaves  him  with  the  painful,  perhaps  the  crushing  truth :  I  have  been 
cast  into  existence  and,  one  day,  I  shall  be  torn  from  it.  What  value 
can  this  respite  have  in  a  close  prison  where  my  life  is  a  continual 
going  out  to  the  place  of  execution? 

The  Adam-myth,  perhaps  more  familiar  but  not  better  under- 
stood, exhibits,  in  ways  appropriate  to  its  own  essence,  the  same 
motif:  catastrophe  and  the  loss  of  innocence,  truth  and  danger.  Eat- 
ing of  the  fruit  of  the  tree  of  the  knowledge  of  good  and  evil,  Adam 
becomes — as  God? — not  quite.  But  he  becomes  man — now  at  emnity 
with  the  world,  itself  forever  hostile  to  him.  Cast  out  of  Eden,  naked 
as  no  animal  is,  vulnerable,  mortal. 

The  Faust  legend  is  the  typical  modern  myth.  It  expresses  modern 
man's  peculiar  desire  for  power,  a  desire  for  "guns,  gold  and  girls" 
to  satisfy  which  no  impiety  is  too  great  a  risk  to  run.  It  expresses,  too, 
the  secret  connections  between  the  animus  of  science  and  that  of 
black  magic. 

Karl  Shapiro  has  seen  the  irony  of  the  Faust  myth  symbolized 
in  the  terror  of  an  atomic  age  which  made  a  pact  with  the  prince 
of  darkness  in  return  for  the  final  secret  of  the  physical  world.  He 
writes : 

"Backwardly  tolerant,  Faustus  was  expelled 
From  the  Third  Reich  in  nineteen  thirty-nine. 
His  exit  caused  the  breaching  of  the  Rhine, 
Except   for   which   the   frontier    might   have   held. 
Five  years  unknown  to  enemy  and  friend 
He  hid,  appearing  on  the  sixth  to  pose 
In  an  American  desert  at  War's  end 
Where,  at  his  back,  a  dome  of  atoms  rose." 


207 

By  each  of  these  we  are  reminded  of  what  we  easily  forget: 
anxiety  and  courage  are  very  much  involved  in  our  apprehension 
of  the  truth.  Knowledge,  because  it  is  always  associated  with  a  loss 
of  innocence,  is  an  equivocal  good.  Who  is  there  who  has  never 
thought  so?  Who  has  ever  thought  so  with  untroubled  conscience  in 
face  of  our  public  modern  myth? 

I  think  certain  historical  confusions  are  in  part  to  blame  for  this 
uneasy  simple-mindedness :  The  seventeenth  century's  identification 
of  truth  with  the  science  of  physical  nature ;  the  eighteenth  century's 
identification  of  mind  with  consciousness ;  our  contemporary  identifi- 
cation of  truth  with  particular  contingent  truths  discovered  by  what 
is  too  uncritically  thought  to  be  a  value-free,  neutral  "scientific" 
method.  It  is  clear,  is  it  not,  that  if  truth  is  understood  in  terms  of 
this  model,  thus  construed,  then  it  is  difficult  for  us  to  concede  that 
anxiety  and  courage  are  in  any  way  involved.  Value-free  reason 
apprehending  such  truths  is  subject  to  no  anxiety  and  hence  stands 
in  no  need  of  courage. 

The  Ancient  and  Medieval  imagination  saw  truth  to  be,  in  the 
last  analysis,  bound  to  sapientia,  that  is,  to  sapience,  the  endow- 
ment in  virtue  of  which  is  homo  sapiens :  the  sole  creature  who  grasps 
his  total  situation  in  the  world — at  once  great  and  wretched.  Plato 
explicitly  argued  that  only  the  good  man — it  would  not  be  unfaithful 
here  to  say,  the  courageous  man — can  know  the  truth.  This  is  why  he 
spoke  of  the  radical  coming  into  the  truth  as  a  metanoia,  a  turning 
round  of  the  soul,  a  "thinking  reversely." 

But  we  need  not  go  so  far  for  a  qualification  of  our  contemporary 
public  myth.  So-called  Depth-psychology  has  rehabilitated  many  of 
these  ancient  insights  for  us.  It  shows  us  quite  explicitly  that  mind 
is  not  just  consciousness,  that  we  are  neither  transparent  nor  tract- 
able to  ourselves.  Augustine's  utterance  could  well  be  the  motto  of 
Sigmund  Freud :  "Man  is  a  great  deep.  It  is  not  possible  to  number 
the  hairs  of  his  head.  Yet  it  is  easier  to  number  the  hairs  of  his  head 
than  the  beatings  of  his  heart." 

From  this — and  it  is  no  accident  that  Freud's  dominating  con- 
cept is  an  elliptical  story,  the  Oedipus  complex — we  learn  that  we 
are  not  simply  available  to  our  own  conscious  management;  that  we 
are  in  fact  mysteries  to  ourselves.  We  learn  too  that  there  is  painful, 
threatening,  anxiety-producing  truth  about  ourselves  and  about  our 
human  condition  which  we  repress,  concerning  which  we  rationalize, 
from  which  we  are  forever  in  flight.  And  finally,  we  learn  that  none 


208 

of  us  can  face  these  without  courage — indeed  a  courage  which  itself 
appears  to  us  unbidden  from  our  own  intractable  depths. 

Perhaps  I  will  not  mislead  you  if  I  explicitly  resort  to  a  psycho- 
analytic analogy.  There  is  a  sense  in  which  we  may  say  that  the 
neurotic  is  the  creator  of  a  world  of  his  own  "imagination"  to  which 
he  then  becomes  subject — incarcerated  as  a  prisoner.  The  job  of  the 
therapist  is,  as  an  outsider,  to  invade  that  world  and  to  enhance  his 
patient's  wish  to  be  free.  The  invasion  is  a  kind  of  incarnation,  for 
the  therapist  enters  the  neurotic  world  from  the  outside  and  remains, 
while  in  it,  an  outsider,  lest  he,  like  his  patient,  become  the  subject 
of  that  world,  powerless  against  it. 

Now,  expand  the  analogy.  In  one  sense,  each  of  us,  like  the  neu- 
rotic, is  the  prisoner  of  his  own  picture  of  what  the  world  is  Hke. 
This  is  what  is  meant  by  idolatry — the  imprisonment  of  ourselves 
in  any  given  picture  of  the  world.  It  is  God  who  invades  this  world, 
threatening  us  ultimately,  but  also  setting  us  free. 

We,  each  of  us  have  a  stake  in  this  picture.  It  is  ours.  We  are 
defensive  before  every  invasion  of  it.  We  are  threatened  by  every 
claim  that  challenges  it.  Every  new  truth  makes  us  anxious  because 
we  have  made  an  investment  of  our  personhood  in  the  old  "truth." 
If  any  of  us  ever  succeeds  in  facing  this  challenge,  it  is  because 
courage  has  come  to  us. 

We  are  simple  idolaters — imprisoned  in  our  imaginations — who 
can  be  set  at  liberty  only  when  that  imagination  is  ravished  by  Reality 
or  by  God. 

Pagan  man  could  not  finally  face  three  facts :  the  fact  of  existence, 
the  fact  of  freedom,  the  fact  of  death. 

If  it  is  not  possible  for  you  to  adopt  a  positive  attitude  to  these 
three  radical  facts,  then  it  is  impossible  for  you  to  take  persons  seri- 
ously— which  is  to  say,  impossible  for  you  to  take  yourself  seriously. 

In  The  Concept  of  Dread,  Kierkegaard  characterizes  inzvardness 
as  seriousness,  which  is  for  him  the  diametric  opposite  of  despair. 
To  illustrate,  he  then  quotes  the  lines  written  by  Shakespeare  for 
Macbeth,  when,  having  murdered  the  King  he  is  in  despair: 

".  .  .  from  this  instant 
There's  nothing  serious  in  mortality: 
All  is  but  toys :  renown  and 
grace  is  dead." 

Pagan  man  could  not  face  existence  because  it  was,  in  its  nature, 
hybrid — the  very  act  of  existing  was  itself  a  disordering  of  a  primal 


209 

order,  to  which  all  existing  things  would  "make  reparation  for  their 
injustice  according  to  the  disposition  of  time." 

Pagan  man  could  not  face  freedom  because  it  introduces,  in  his 
view,  an  anticosmic  contingency,  disorder,  chaos,  a  threat  of  non- 
being,  and  hence  guilt  and  terror.  This  is  the  meaning  of  the  great 
sigh  of  relief  at  the  end  of  Sophocles'  Oedipus  the  King : 

"You  that  live  in  my  ancestral  Thebes, 

Behold  this  Oedipus, 

Him  who  knew  the  famous  riddles  and  was  a  man  most  masterful ; 

Not  a  citizen  who  did  not  look  with  envy  on  his  lot — 

See  him  now  and  see  the  breakers  of  misfortune  swallow  him ! 

Look  upon  that  last  day  always. 

Count  no  mortal  happy  till  he  has  passed 

The  final  limit  of  his  life  secure  from  pain." 

Finally,  pagan  man  could  not  take  death  seriously  as  an  ultimate 
and  genuine  threat  to  all  meaning.  Therefore  meaning  for  him  had 
to  reside  finally  in  an  immortal  and  hence  impersonal  order.  If  you 
cannot  take  death  seriously  as  a  genuine  threat,  then  neither  can 
you  take  our  finite  life  with  seriousness.  Only  when  death  is  the  last 
and  the  greatest  enemy  can  life  be  cherished  as  worth  living.  D.  H. 
Lawrence,  as  a  novelist  and  pamphleteer,  obsessed,  perhaps,  by  our 
culture's  capacity  to  assimilate  and  thereby  neutralize  all  criticism 
of  itself;  to  cerebralize  and  remove  the  sting  of  ultimate  mystery, 
has  Mrs.  Whitt,  in  St.  Mawr,  say:  "Now  listen  to  me.  .  .  I  want 
death  to  be  real  to  me.  ...  I  want  it  to  hurt  me.  ...  If  it  hurts 
me  enough,  I  shall  know  I  was  alive."  This  puts  my  point  very  well — 
and  points  up  the  neopaganism  of  our  mind  against  which  Lawrence 
was  here  railing. 

It  was  the  very  opposite  of  this  attitude  that  one  finds  in  the 
Greek  saying :  "It  is  best  never  to  have  been  born,  next  best  to  take 
leave  of  this  life." 

Where  existence,  freedom  and  death  cannot  be  positively  ap- 
propriated, persons  can  never  matter. 

The  impact  of  the  Judeo-Christian  faith  upon  this  pagan  imagi- 
nation produced  Western  culture. 

In  this  faith  there  is  no  recoil  from  these  painful  truths  about 
the  human  condition.  In  Job  we  read : 

"My  days  are  swifter  than  a  weaver's  shuttle,  and  are  spent  without 
hope.  Oh  remember  that  my  life  is  a  breath." 


210 

In  this  view,  man  is  made  out  of  the  dust.  His  life  is  a  tale  that 
is  told. 

At  the  same  time,  with  seeming  paradox,  guilt  is  sin,  sin  is  the 
expression  of  man's  freedom,  and  his  freedom  is  a  gift  of  God ! 

The  Christian  declares  that  Jesus  Christ  has  overcome  sin  and 
death.  What,  in  the  light  of  what  I've  said,  can  this  mean? 

It  means  that  now  we  can  accept  existence  as  God's  gift;  sin 
as  the  sign  of  our  freedom ;  and  life  as  that  which  has  been  saved 
from  meaninglessness.  Now,  we  are  able  to  take  persons  seriously. 
Given  an  ultimate  courage  to  face  the  most  painful  truth  about  our- 
selves, there  is  no  longer  any  truth  we  need  fear. 

You  are  all  familiar,  I  am  sure,  with  St.  Paul's  words  in  his 
Epistle  to  the  Romans  where  he  says:  "For  I  am  persuaded  that 
neither  life  nor  death,  nor  things  present  nor  things  to  come,  nor 
angels  nor  principalities  nor  powers,  nor  height  nor  depth,  nor  any- 
thing else  in  the  whole  creation,  can  separate  us  from  the  love  of 
God  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus." 

Perhaps  it  has  not  occurred  to  you  to  remark  the  relevance  of 
these  words  to  the  life  of  the  mind. 

There  was  no  such  thing  as  a  college  or  a  university,  in  our  sense, 
in  the  culture  which  nurtured  St.  Paul.  On  the  contrary,  it  was  pre- 
cisely the  faith  of  St.  Paul,  expressed  in  these  words,  out  of  which 
such  institutions  came :  the  faith,  namely,  that  Jesus  Christ  had 
overcome  both  sin  and  death;  that  He  had  deprived  them  of  their 
binding  power  upon  the  human  imagination.  This  faith  nurtured  the 
university  in  the  Western  world. 

For  this  faith  declares  that  the  guilt  that  infects  all  existence 
and  all  freedom  has  been  removed — if  not  in  fact,  at  least  in  hope. 
The  whole  world  of  nature  and  of  human  culture  is  seen  to  be  God's 
creature.  Henceforth  we  can  seek  to  discover  its  mystery  without 
anxiety.  The  wound  inflicted  by  our  loss  of  innocence  has  been  healed. 
Human  reason  is  now  beyond  tragedy,  because  "Christ  is  God's  and 
ye  are  Christ's ;  therefore  all  things  are  yours." 

This  is  the  regenerate  mind.  No  student  wholly  lacking  it ;  no 
university  unleavened  by  it  can  survive. 

If  wisdom  be  grasping  our  total  situation  in  the  world ;  and  if 
dreadful  existence,  anxiety-producing  freedom  and  meaning-threaten- 
ing death  are  facts  we  have  to  meet  on  the  way ;  then  only  those 
who  have  a  faith  which  takes  the  dread  out  of  existence,  the  anxiety 


211 

out  of  freedom,  and  the  threat  of  meaninglessness  out  of  death  can 
have  the  courage  of  the  regenerate  mind. 

In  the  posture  of  this  faith  such  a  one  will  be  able  to  say  with 
St.  Paul :  "I  am  persuaded  that  neither  communism  nor  fascism ; 
Freudianism  nor  Jungianism;  Einsteinianism  nor  the  theory  of  an 
ever-expanding  universe;  neither  historicism  nor  impressionism, 
existentialism  and  logical  positivism;  the  theory  of  deficit  finance 
nor  the  principle  of  complementarity  can  separate  me  from  the  love 
of  God  in  Christ  Jesus." 

Being  delivered  from  anxiety,  he  then  can  explore,  examine, 
criticize  or  appropriate  any  of  these,  knowing  that  his  ultimate  securi- 
ty is  not  bound  to  the  transient  career  of  these  penultimate  truths. 

The  world  of  nature  and  human  culture  are  therefore  his  to  un- 
derstand and  love  with  a  regenerate  mind. 

Whenever  he  is  armed  with  such  ultimate  courage,  he  is  beyond 
anxiety :  the  loss  of  innocence  ceases  to  be  an  equivocal  good. 
***** 

Does  anyone  have  this  faith?  Is  the  higher  learning  still  the 
fiduciary  of  this  legacy? 

I  confess  I  do  not  know.  But  I  do  believe  the  hour  is  already  very 
late. 

So  now  we  have  the  new  theology,  in  paperbacks  by  the  hundreds 
of  thousands,  upon  the  racks  along  with  Greek  Tragedy,  A  House 
is  Not  a  Home  and  Candy. 

"The  death  of  God,"  this  is  the  kind  of  total  claim  from  which 
I  turn  away  in  horror.  It  now  seems  too  large  a  matter  for  my 
sensibilities. 

I  am  affronted  by  the  total  claim  delivered  in  an  apocalyptic  tone, 
especially  when  overnight  it  comes  to  be  uttered  by  a  thousand  voices 
and  then  becomes  chic.  And  everyone  becomes  Jean-Baptiste  Clam- 
ence,  judge-penitents,  haranging  each  other  with  wild  eyes  in  cof- 
fee-houses, bars  and  student  unions,  filling  the  air  with  "the  death 
of  God"  and  with  "anguish"  while  silently  all  about  them  are  stu- 
dents and  colleagues  dying  in  a  quiet,  humble  despair  for  want  just 
of  hearing  their  own  names  called. 

The  great  engine  of  higher  learning  is  fully  throttled  up  in  the 
Great  Society.  And  the  whole  ghastly  enterprise  would  be  a  farce 
at  which  we  could  all  laugh,  if  it  were  not  in  fact  so  dangerous. 

It  is  not  easy  to  know  what  the  words  of  St.  Paul  mean ;  perhaps 
even  more  difficult  to  subscribe  to  them. 


212 

For  myself,  I  must  tell  you  that  sometimes  they  resonate  with 
the  deepest  things  that  are  in  me ;  at  others  they  fall  equivocally 
upon  a  tin  and  complacent  ear. 

Yet — even  for  me,  guilty  over  my  too  modest  goals,  it  is  possible 
at  least  for  me  to  pray : 

"Give  us  this  day  our  daily  bread." 

May  it  be  at  least  as  well  with  you. 


The  Dean's  Discourse 


CHARLES  PHILLIPS  BOWLES  died  suddenly  August  30, 
1966.  With  this  lamented  event,  the  Divinity  School  lost  one  of  its 
staunchest  alumni  supporters  whose  sustained  concern  and  service  to 
the  school  and,  as  trustee  to  Duke  University,  over  all  the  years  since 
his  graduation  with  the  B.D.  degree  in  1931  has  been  uncommon  and 
far  beyond  the  line  of  duty.  A  powerful  churchman,  pastor,  and 
preacher.  Dr.  Bowles  was  an  enlightened  champion  of  progressive 
causes  in  all  domains.  It  was  my  privilege  to  have  his  ardent  leader- 
ship and  suggestive  guidance  as  Trustee  Chairman  of  the  Divinity 
School  Board  of  Visitors  Committee,  initiated  and  authorized  by 
the  University  Trustees  in  1963.  But,  for  years.  Dr.  Bowles  has 
given  of  himself,  his  energies,  and  his  mind  to  urgent  issues  affecting 
the  destiny  of  Duke  University.  While  pastor  of  the  Centenary 
Methodist  Church,  and  before  that,  as  District  Superintendent  of 
the  Charlotte  District,  and  as  pastor  of  the  West  Market  Street 
Methodist  Church,  Greensboro,  N.  C,  Dr.  Bowles  was  continually 
imposed  upon  to  give  diligent  attention  to  pressing  developments 
associated  with  Duke  University.  The  Divinity  School  laments  his 
untimely  death;  the  University  will  miss  him;  the  Church  shall 
have  lost  a  sturdy  and  courageous  son  whose  reward  must  now  be: 
"Enter  thou  into  the  joy  of  thy  Lord."  Amen, 

We  have  been  greatly  deprived  in  the  resignations  of  Professor 
Hugh  Anderson  and  Associate  Professor  John  Strugnell  from  the 
faculty  of  the  Divinity  School.  As  already  announced.  Professor 
Anderson  accepted  the  chair  of  New  Testament  at  New  College, 
University  of  Edinburg,  Scotland,  and  assumed  teaching  duties 
there  this  autumn.  Dr.  Strugnell  accepted  a  position  at  Harvard 
Divinity  School,  effective  this  current  fall,  as  Associate  Professor 
of  Christian  Origins. 

I  am  pleased  to  record  in  the  Review  an  announcement  already 
made  public  during  the  summer  months  that  Dr.  W.  D.  Davies, 
until  recently  Edward  Robinson  Professor  of  Biblical  Theology, 
Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York  City,  has  accepted  appoint- 
ment as  George  Washington  Ivey  Professor  of  Advanced  Studies 
and  Research  in  Christian  Origins  on  the  faculty  of  Duke  University 
Divinity  School.  Among  our  alumni  there  will  be  many  who  studied 
under  Dr.  Davies  when  he  came  first  to  the  United  States  and  taught 
at  the  Divinity  School  during  the  years  1950-55.  Subsequently,  he 


214 

taught  four  years  at  Princeton  as  Professor  of  Graduate  Studies 
in  New  Testament,  and  since  1959  has  pursued  his  teaching  and 
research  at  Union,  New  York. 

Dr.  Davies'  volume  Paul  and  Rabbinic  Judaism,  first  published 
in  1948,  brought  him  immediate  international  attention  as  a  scholar 
and  chartered  the  lines  for  his  subsequent  researches  in  the  Jewish 
background  of  early  Christianity,  which  he  has  and  will  continue  to 
utilize  for  the  illumination  of  key  documents  of  the  New  Testament 
corpus.  His  monumental  work,  The  Setting  of  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount,  Cambridge,  1964,  was  reviewed  with  high  approbation 
by  Professor  Anderson  some  time  past.  Dr.  Davies'  recently  published 
semi-popular  introduction  to  the  New  Testament,  entitled  Invitation 
to  the  New  Testament,  Doubleday,  N.  Y.,  1965,  was  a  Religious 
Book  Club  selection  during  the  current  year. 

Professor  Davies,  in  coming  to  the  Divinity  School  faculty,  sets 
for  himself  a  formidable  program  of  research  as  well  as  of  teaching. 
To  his  extensive  and  continuing  collaboration  with  Jewish  scholars 
in  America  and  Israel  he  adds  the  distinction  of  being  member  of 
the  Executive  Committee  of  the  Jewish  Congress  for  World  Studies. 
A  member  of  numerous  American  and  European  societies  for  Biblical 
Studies,  his  international  scholarly  stature  is  signified  in  his  election 
in  1964  as  Burkitt  Medalist  of  the  British  Academy. 

We  look  forward  with  high  expectancy  to  the  contribution  of 
two  younger  scholars  who  join  the  faculty  this  fall.  Dr.  Gene  M. 
Tucker  comes  to  us  as  Assistant  Professor  of  Old  Testament  from 
the  Graduate  School  of  Religion  of  the  University  of  Southern 
California.  A  Texan  and  a  graduate  of  McMurray  College,  Dr. 
Tucker  received  his  B.D.,  M.A.  and  Ph.D.  degrees  from  Yale.  His 
command  of  his  field  of  study  and  instruction  is  already  indicated  by 
the  number  and  competency  of  scholarly  articles  to  his  credit. 

Dr.  Donald  S.  Williamson  joins  the  faculty  as  Assistant  Pro- 
fessor of  Pastoral  Care  to  bring  important  and  urgently  needed 
instructional  support  to  our  flourishing  program  in  this  constructive 
discipline.  A  native  of  Ireland,  schooled  and  educated  for  the  Meth- 
odist ministry  in  Belfast,  Dr.  Williamson  completed  doctoral  studies 
at  Northwestern  University  and  was  a  highly  respected  two-year 
resident  in  the  notable  pastoral  care  program  under  the  Menninger 
Foundation,  Topeka,  Kansas. 

Robert  E.  Cushman 


FOCUS     ON 
FACULTY 


D.  MOODY  SMITH,  JR.,  Associate  Professor  of  New  Testament: 

Since  it  is  probably  impossible  for  a  person  to  write  about  himself 
without  being  self-conscious,  he  may  as  well  throw  caution  to  the 
winds  and  give  as  good  an  account  of  himself  as  possible.  Perhaps 
in  the  theological  world  this  can  best  be  done,  not  by  speaking  of 
one's  life  as  if  it  were  a  good  or  at  least  a  neutral  quality,  but  by 
speaking  of  one's  sin.  Good  precedent  for  this  has  already  been  estab- 
lished by  Augustine,  if  not  by  the  Apostle  Paul.  Yet  even  in  this 
regard  I  can  make  no  impressive  claims,  nor  can  I  bring  forth  spec- 
tacular revelations.  Augustine's  sinfulness  was  of  a  sort  to  arouse 
most  men's  imaginations,  and  Paul  in  his  zeal  for  Judaism  had 
persecuted  the  church  of  God.  Have  I  done  anything  comparable? 
Scarcely.  Perhaps  at  best  I  have  on  occasion  harbored  a  few  lasciv- 
ious thoughts  or  cursed  my  elders  under  my  breath.  But  such  ac- 
complishments are  commonplace,  and  not  worthy  of  serious  attention. 

The  most  penetrating  and  disturbing  assessment  of  my  life 
might  be  that  I  have  retreated  from  the  world  to  the  church,  from  the 
church  to  the  clergy,  and  from  the  clergy  to  the  groves  of  academe, 
in  each  instance  justifying  the  withdrawal  with  reasons  plausible 
to  men.  It  is  hardly  a  defense  against  this  judgment,  but  nevertheless 
true,  that  had  I  stopped  anywhere  along  the  way  things  might  not 
have  been  fundamentally  changed.  For  at  any  point  in  this  or  any 
other  pilgrimage  the  basic  question  remains  the  same,  namely, 
whether  one  will  serve  God  or  Mammon.  No  vocational  commit- 
ment or  institutional  loyalty  can,  in  and  of  itself,  guarantee  the  right 
choice  in  advance — certainly  not  theological  teaching,  where  there 
are  real  temptations  to  hubris  or  humility,  along  with  the  distinct 
possibility  of  making  one's  self  useless  and  superfluous.  And  this  quite 
apart  from  the  fact  the  theological  professor  is  in  any  case  a  marginal 
person  in  this  world. 

Nevertheless,  I  am  still  convinced  that  the  theological  task  is 
potentially  a  very  meaningful  and  significant  one,  and  I  have  no  great 
illusions  about  my  being  able  to  serve  God  better  "in  the  church" 
or  "in  the  world".  For,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  theological  teacher 


216 

remains  in  the  world  and  in  the  church,  and  has  a  place  and  a  role 
in  both.  This  despite  the  fact  that  neither  may  want  to  acknowledge 
his  presence.  His  temptations  and  perils  are  matched  by  the  possibil- 
ity and  opportunity  of  bearing  witness  to  the  reality  and  truth  of  the 
church's  faith  within  and  without  the  temple  courts.  Admittedly, 
when  one  has  withdrawn  into  the  intellectual  bastion  of  the  house- 
hold of  faith,  the  theological  faculty,  he  confronts  the  startling  seri- 
ousness and  difficulty  of  the  issues  which  the  modern  world  poses  for 
the  church.  If  he  is  to  maintain  his  intellectual  integrity,  he  has  to 
recognize  this  state  of  affairs  and  work  at  coming  to  terms  with  it. 
While  his  professional  task  may  therefore  be  complex,  things  remain 
somewhat  simpler  with  respect  to  himself  and  his  vocational  under- 
standing. He  is  still  confronted  with  the  decision  of  whether  he  will 
believe  the  Gospel  and  live  out  of  this  faith,  or  whether  he  will  try 
to  build  himself  some  kind  of  empire.  There  are  academic,  as  well  as 
political,  ecclesiastical,  and  financial  empires,  and  they  vary  in  size 
and  shape.  Some  may  be  administrative,  pedagogical  or  bibliograph- 
ical, others  personal.  But  there  is  one  common  factor.  As  ends  in 
themselves  they  represent  practical  abandonment  of  the  Gospel  in 
favor  of  the  world. 

Such  considerations  as  these  constrain  me  from  rejoicing  exces- 
sively over  either  my  internal  or  external  histories.  The  latter,  for  the 
record,  is  unexceptional.  I  was  born  in  Murfreesboro,  Tennessee; 
lived  in  various  Southern  towns  before  I  was  six ;  attended  public 
schools  in  Spartanburg,  South  Carolina.  After  Davidson  College,  I 
came  to  Duke  for  a  B.D.  and  went  on  to  Yale  for  doctoral  study  in 
New  Testament.  Then  followed  five  happy  years  on  the  faculty  of  the 
Methodist  Theological  School  in  Ohio,  one  of  which  was  spent  on  a 
theological  busman's  holiday  in  Europe.  Last  fall  I  joined  the  faculty 
of  Duke  Divinity  School,  an  institution  of  great  potential,  not  all 
of  it  yet  realized. 

I  had  the  good  fortune  to  marry  a  wife  who  is  little  interested  in 
theology,  but  nevertheless  has  a  keen  eye  for  hokum  in  the  church 
and  in  me.  We  have  four  children.  In  a  world  like  ours,  joy  over 
even  such  things  as  these  must  realistically  be  tinged  with  uncer- 
tainty, indeed  with  fear  and  trembling.  Yet  who  can  afford  to  be  anx- 
ious ?  For  in  such  anxiety  lie  the  greatest  temptations  of  all :  to 
excuse  one's  self  from  all  decisive  action  and  commitment  because 
of  "responsibilities" ;  to  try  to  make  one's  own  life  secure  when 
worldly  security  is  an  impossible  and  therefore  illusory  goal ;  to 
forget  who  has  overcome  the  world ;  to  forfeit  the  right  of  being  more 
than  conquerors  through  Him. 


at 


LOOKS 
BOOKS 


The  Heritage  of  Christion  Thought:  Essays  in  Honor  of  Robert  Loivry  Calhoun. 

Edited  by  Robert  E.  Cushman  and  Egil  Grislis.  Harper  and  Row,  1965.  243 

pp.  $6.00. 

Some  teachers  are  known  for  their  own  accomplishment,  others  are  known 
for  the  students  they  produce.  A  very  special  few  are  known  equally  well  for 
both  these  qualities,  and  among  this  small  band  may  be  numbered  Robert  L. 
Calhoun.  For  a  long  time,  all  students  of  theology  have  known  of  the  work  of 
Robert  Calhoun :  his  lectures  in  historical  theology  and  the  history  of  philosophy 
at  Yale  represent  impressive  achievements ;  the  unpublished  (but  widely  circu- 
lated) notes  from  these  lectures  are  a  part  of  the  modern  "oral"  tradition;  his 
few  small  books  and  articles  have  made  their  own  contribution.  Now,  in  this 
collection  of  essays  we  have  an  opportunity  to  witness  the  influence  of  a  great 
teacher  on  distinguished  students,  and  the  results  are  impressive. 

The  influence  of  the  teacher  may  been  seen  in  the  philosophical  orientation 
of  the  essays.  While  there  are  several  exceptions  to  this  generalization,  one  of 
the  most  obvious  characteristics  of  Calhoun's  own  interest  in  the  history  of 
doctrine  was  its  philosophical  component,  and  this  concern  is  reflected  in  the 
contributions  to  this  volume.  Since  each  of  the  articles  is  discrete — and  since 
they  range  widely  over  the  field  of  historical  theology,  which  means  that  they 
range  widely  indeed — we  shall  only  look  at  several  examples  of  the  types  of 
articles  which  were  contributed  to  this  festchrift. 

Of  the  strictly  philosophical  contributions,  several  are  of  special  interest. 
George  A.  Lindbeck's  exploration  of  "The  A  Priori  in  St.  Thomas'  Theory  of 
Knowledge,"  brings  together  materials  from  an  on-going  discussion  in  Roman 
Catholic  scholarship  and  points  to  the  way  in  which  the  rejection  by  Thomas 
of  a  priori  knowledge  in  one  particular  situation  has  been  continued  into 
another  philosophical  era,  transposed  to  a  rejection  of  all  a  priori  knowledge, 
and  thus  to  opposition  to  the  philosophy  of  Immanuel  Kant  (perhaps  the 
encyclical  Pascendi  gregis  is  the  most  blatant  example  of  this).  But  Lindbeck 
also  shows  with  historical  thoroughness  and  philosophical  sophistication  that 
there  are  possible  ways  of  relating  Thomas  and  Kant,  and  that  upon  this  ad- 
mittedly limited  collusion  rests  a  distinct  hope  for  advancement  in  Roman 
Catholic  philosophical  theology.  Roger  Hazelton  explores  "Pascal's  Wager 
Argument"  and  affirms  his  conviction  that  it  remains  a  creative  contribution 
to  the  philosophical  interpretation  of  theology.  The  views  expressed  are  not 
new,  but  as  a  survey  and  a  suggestive  discussion  it  has  much  merit.  William 
Christian's  article  in  "Spinoza  on  Theology  and  Truth,"  reflects  the  author's 
interest  in  the  truth  value  of  theological  statements  (which  he  has  developed 
in  his  Meaning  and  Truth  in  Religion),  but  it  also  provides  a  probing  analysis 
of  Spinoza's  argument  in  which  Spinoza  separates  philosophical  speculation 
from  the  mandates  of  piety.  The  terribly  complex  and  difficult-to-foUow  ar- 
gument of  the  Tractatus  Theologico-Politicus  is  exhibited  with  clarity  and 
candidly  assessed. 

Of  the  more  theologically  orientated  articles  three  were  particularly  interest- 
ing to  me.  The  essay  by  Robert  E.  Cushman  in  "The  Christology  of  Paul  Tillich" 
only  makes  us  aware,  once  again,  of  the  need  to  hear  his  voice  more  often  in  the 
current  theological  discussion.  I  would  judge  that  this  article   represents  one 


218 

of  the  most  substantive  criticisms  of  Tillich's  position  which  has  appeared 
and  that  future  Tillichian  studies  must  take  into  account  the  investigations  of 
this  article,  especially  Cushman's  analysis  of  the  relation  of  essence  to  existence, 
the  dominant  character  of  Tillich's  ontological  monism,  the  subsumption  of  the 
historical  Jesus  into  receptive  ecstasy  on  the  part  of  the  believer  (s),  and  the 
consequent  co-ordinate  relation  of  Christ  and  the  church  in  the  event  of 
revelation.  Other  interpretations  of  Tillich  are  possible,  but  no  one  can 
support  an  alternative  point  of  view  without  facing  squarely  the  explications 
found  in  this  article. 

Another  of  "our  own,"  Egil  Grislis,  has  contributed  an  article  on  "The 
Role  of  Consensus  in  Richard  Hooker's  Method  of  Theological  Inquiry."  Egil 
Grislis  has  already  established  himself  as  the  most  thorough  and  perceptive 
interpreter  of  Hooker  with  whom  I  am  acquainted.  The  carefulness  of  the 
explication  is  impressive  and  the  subtle  play  of  the  various  influences  which 
went  into  Hooker's  thought  and  the  relation  of  the  Anglican  "Great  Father"  > 
to  his  context  are  additional  strengths  of  the  discussion.  I  see  Hooker  with 
fresh  eyes  after  reading  each  of  the  articles  Grislis  has  written  and  none  of 
his  contributions  to  Hooker  research  has  been  more  central  in  its  focus  than 
this  one.  The  article  by  Carl  Michalson  on  "The  Hermeneutics  of  Holiness  in 
Wesley,"  may  be  of  interest  to  readers  of  this  Reinezv.  Not  so  much,  however, 
for  its  work  on  Wesley,  per  se,  but  as  a  way  of  seeing  how  a  theologian  who 
is  caught  up  in  the  work  of  the  "new  hermeneutic"  understands  the  thought 
of  a  significent  forebear  and  how  this  new  hermeneutic  discussion  may  be 
seen  as  operative  even  in  a  past  figure. 

Of  the  more  directly  historical  articles,  the  one  which  I  find  especially 
interesting  is  the  lead  article  by  Albert  C.  Outler,  "The  Sense  of  Tradition 
in  the  Ante-Nicene  Church."  For  those  who  are  already  familiar  with  Outler's 
work,  the  distinctions  about  the  meaning  of  tradition — as  a  deposit  and  a  pro- 
cess— will  be  familiar.  But  to  see  how  some  of  these  themes  functioned  in  the 
early  Church  Fathers  is  both  intriguing  and  important.  I  feel  the  need  for 
delineations  which  are  not  provided  by  the  patristic  theology,  but  the  rudiments 
of  continually  significant  theological  work  are  made  obvious  by  Outler. 

This  book  was  a  pleasure  to  read,  and  not  least  of  all  because  of  the  care 
of  the  editors.  Someone  had  checked  and  doublechecked  the  footnotes,  the 
order  brought  some  purpose  to  the  completely  independent  articles  and  the 
dedication  was  tasteful  and  moving. 

Thomas  A.  Langford 


Worship:    Its    Theory    and    Practice.  Thus  I  was  led  into  an  ecumenical 

J.  J.  von  AUmen.  Oxford  1965.  317  dialogue    such    as    many    of    us    have 

pp.  $6.50.  had,    in    which,   beyond    the    accidents 

I    began    reading    this    rather    for-  ^^  ^^^^"^  ^nd  ethos  we   discover  our 

bidding  tome  by  a  Swiss  theologian-  '^^'T'"''"  ^^^"ences  m  God    and  the 

teacher    reluctantly.    But    I    am    glad  "^^^"^^^    f.    ^^^    European    Reformed 

that  I  read  it.  For  within  the  austere  common  lite. 

style    and    drab    European    format    I  J    ^^a  1    not    attempt    to    glamorize 

discovered    that    rarity    in    America-  ^his  book;   the  chapter  headmgs   will 

a   theologian    who   is    also   a   liturgist  suggest    its    solid    quality.    The    first 

and    a    pastor,    who    reminded   me    of  half,  "Problems  of  Principle,"  treats: 

the    Biblical   and   theological   bases   of  Christian   Worship   as   the   recapitula- 

worship,  and  revealed  the  richness  of  tion   of   the    history    of    salvation;    as 

"the  variegated   grace  of  God"  in  the  the  epiphany    (the   manifesting  forth) 

uses    of    the    Catholic    Church,    Re-  of   the    Church;    the    cult    (corporate 

formed.  worship)    as    the    end    and    future    of 


219 


the  world ;  and  the  approach  to  liturgi- 
cal  forms. 

Here  are  the  Biblical  bases  of  our 
common  worship — The  Father's  in- 
vitation and  our  participation  as  "our 
bounden  duty  and  service"  in  Christ's 
obedient  and  perfect  self-offering, 
which  he  "liturgized"  in  the  Last  Sup- 
per and  commanded  his  Church  to 
continue  "till  he  come." 

Of  course,  the  primary  form  or 
mode  of  such  Koinonia  is  the  Koinon- 
ia,  the  Lord's  Supper,  the  Eucharist. 
And  any  renewal  of  our  common  life 
in  Christ  must  begin  with  recovery 
of  the  Eucharistic  and  communal  full- 
ness of  our  offered  worship.  For  it 
is  through  our  offered  liturgy  that 
the  Spirit  of  Christ  is  pleased  and 
enabled  to  act  in  his  gathered  Church. 
And  impoverished  worship  limits  His 
gracious  ministeries. 

In  part  two,  "Problems  of  Celebra- 
tion," we  are  reminded  of :  the  Com- 
ponents of  the  cult  (Word,  Lord's 
Supper,  and  the  prayers)  ;  the  parti- 
cipants (God,  the  faithful,  the  angels, 
and  the  world  and  its  sighs)  ;  the 
time  of  the  cult  (Sunday  and  through- 
out the  liturgical  year)  ;  the  place 
of  worship  (as  a  locale  for  and  as 
a  witness  to  the  presence  of  Christ)  ; 
the  order  of  worship  (its  "shape",  the 
historic  ante-Communion-Communion 
actions,  and  its  qualities  simplicity 
and  corporate  reality  and  joy). 

These  central  motifs  suggest  a  brac- 
ing and  biblical  objectivity,  uncon- 
genial to  us,  yet  needed  by  all  of  us 
who,  lacking  such  norms,  consult  our 
personal  preferences  and  feeling- 
tones. 

More  difficult  to  communicate  here 
are  the  pastoral  wisdom  and  liturgi- 
cal sensitivity  of  the  Jewish-Christian- 
community,  now  coming  to  our  atten- 
tion— to  our  surprise — in  both  Roman 
Catholic  and  Reformed  liturgical  lit- 
erature. But  had  we  "informalists" 
thought  of  the  gracious  salutations, 
invitations  and  Sursum  Cordas  in  the 
services,  not  as  "formality,"  but  as 
"brotherly  encouragement  as  we  to- 
gether draw  near  the  throne  of 
grace."   (p.  173)  ? 


And  should  we  Methodists  think 
prayerfully  about  compatible  social 
and  spiritual  "styles"  of  our  worship, 
lest  "we  insult  and  limit  the  grace 
which  has  quickened  and  strengthened 
the  Church  ...  by  continuing  to 
worship  in  an  artificial  and  spurious 
poverty,  instead  of  rejoicing  more 
appropriately  in  our  blessings  in 
Christ"  (p.  177)  ? 

And  let  us,  often  accused  of  senti- 
mentality and  carelessness  in  per- 
mitting children  to  commune  before 
they  "have  joined  the  church,"  at 
once  take  heart,  clarify  our  theological 
reasons,  and  correct  our  terminology, 
as  we  ponder  this  line  of  thought: 
that  God  claims  and  welcomes  chil- 
dren ;  they  are  members  of  the  family 
of  God,  and  should  not  be  "excom- 
municated" pending  their  becoming 
"full  and  responsible  members"  by 
confirmation ;  and  "we  must  insist  up- 
on their  right  to  communicate  the 
more  because  children  are  unable  to 
claim  for  themselves  the  right  that 
is  theirs"  (p.  187). 

(If  you  are  moved  by  this  too- 
hasty  summary  to  either  agreement 
or  argument,  attend  the  January 
seminars  on  Baptism  and  Confirma- 
tion, sponsored  jointly  by  the  North 
Carolina  Conference  Commission  on 
Worship  and  the  Board  of  Evange- 
lism, when  the  richness  of  our  Meth- 
odist heritage  will  be  explored,  as 
we  recover  our  churchly  vocabulary, 
and  study  "confirmation  into  full  and 
responsible  membership  in  the  Church 
of  Christ  and  the  Methodist  Church.") 

Thus  this  representative  of  another 
tradition  says  to  us :  Christ  is  Lord 
of  the  Church ;  we  are  his  grateful 
and  obedient  people ;  let  us  therefore 
participate  without  fail  and  as  our 
central  "work"  in  Divine  Worship 
and  Holy  Communion.  For  through 
our  offered  praise,  prayer  and  preach- 
ing and  in  shared  bread  and  cup 
we  commune  with  Him,  are  fulfilled 
in  Him,  and  are  enabled  to  participate 
in  our  full  humanity  in  His  life  and 
work  in  His  world. 

This  volume  will  interest  a  small 
minority,  but  the  essentials  of  Church 


220 


renewal  it  expounds  are  adapted  to 
our  needs  and  available  to  us  in  our 
revised  Hymnal  and  Book  of  IVorship. 
"Let  us  use  the  grace  Divine"  by 
adopting  the  revised  Services  therein 
and  leading  our  people  back  into  that 
Eucharistic  gratitude,  reality  and  joy 
u^hich  is  our  birthright  no  less  than 
that  of  Dr.  von  Allmen. 

— John  J.  Rudin,  II 

Christianity  in  World  History:  the 
Meeting  of  the  Faiths  of  East  and 
West.  Arend  Theodoor  van  Leeu- 
wen.  (Translated  by  H.  H.  Hos- 
kins.)  Charles  Scribners'  Sons. 
1966.  487  pp.  $8.50. 

In  the  Foreword  Hendrik  Kraemer 
hails  this  book  as  an  "event,"  and 
the  very  breadth  and  sweep  of  the 
author's  approach  and  the  volume  of 
subject  matter  merit  this  unusual 
claim.  It  is  Christian  apologetics, 
church  history,  missionary  critique 
and  comparative  religions  all  woven 
into  an  analysis  of  the  history  of  the 
Church  and  its  role  in  the  modern 
world. 

The  reader  should  be  warned  at  the 
outset  that  he  is  encountering  a  Cal- 
vinist  view  of  God,  man,  Christianity 
and  history.  In  this  connection  it 
might  be  remarked  that  a  firm  Cal- 
vinist  faith  can  offset  a  great  deal 
of  anxiety  about  the  human  condition 
as  well  as  much  enervating  concern 
about  what  God  intends  for  the  hu- 
man race.  Also  one  should  not  be  put 
off  by  an  outdated  emphasis  upon  the 
peculiar  nature  of  the  Hebrew  lan- 
guage as  evidence  for  the  spiritual 
truth  which  it  conveys — e.g.,  "In  fact 
Hebrew  thought  cannot  possibly  en- 
visage a  dimension  of  eternity  which 
would  be  timeless"  (p.  49),  or  ap- 
parently scholarly  statements  on  the 
meaning  of  Hebrew  words  clinched 
with  references  to  Karl  Barth.  At 
the  same  time,  van  Leeuwen  evinces 
a  thorough  knowledge  of  cultural 
history  and  makes  creative  use  of 
this  knowledge  to  work  out  a  phi- 
losophy of  history  which  is  fresh  and 
challenging. 


He  divides  all  civilizations  into  two 
categories,  the  ontocratic  cultures  of 
the  nations  as  opposed  to  the  theo- 
cratic culture  of  ancient  Israel.  Just 
as  the  Tower  of  Babel  illustrates 
man's  continuing  hybris  in  attempting 
to  "be  as  the  gods,"  so  biblical  re- 
ligion refuses  to  compromise  with  any 
other  civilization,  be  it  Egyptian, 
Babylonian,  Canaanite,  Persian, 
Greek  or  other  great  ontocratic 
civilizations  of  India  and  China.  The 
Bible  alone  is  historical,  all  other 
religious  traditions  are  mythological 
and  cyclical,  repeating  the  endless 
story  of  rebirth,  growth,  decay  and 
rebirth.  Van  Leeuwen  makes  the 
startling  claim  that  whereas  non- 
biblical  religions  are  concerned  with 
mythological  cosmogonies,  "Genuine 
myth  indeed  has  never  been  con- 
cerned with  the  theme  of  creation" 
(p.  62).  Thus  there  is  no  myth  in  the 
Bible :  the  Genesis  account  is  about 
creation,  and  therefore  not  mytholog- 
ical ! 

If  I  understand  his  central  thesis 
the  author  is  pointing  to  the  insight 
that  an  ontocratic  civilization  (one 
which  is  monistic  in  its  cosmology 
and  is  caught  up  in  cyclical  repeti- 
tions) finds  this  world  of  time  and 
space  to  be  monotonous  and  essential- 
ly meaningless,  wherein  the  goal  of 
life  is  to  escape  from  the  ceaseless 
rounds  of  existence.  In  contrast,  the 
biblical  revelation  involves  just  that — 
the  breaking  into  this  monotonous 
cycle  by  the  creator  God  whose  rev- 
elation through  Israel  and  the  Christ 
gives  both  meaning  and  a  goal  to 
this  world  of  time  and  space,  i.e., 
existence  becomes  historical.  This,  of 
course,  is  not  news,  but  in  addition 
van  Leeuwen  is  of  the  opinion  that 
a  new  kind  of  man  has  appeared 
which  he  calls  the  "fourth  man."  He 
here  is  following  an  anthropologist,  I 
Alfred  Weber,  for  whom  the  first 
man  preceded  homo  sapiens,  the  sec-  • 
ond  man  was  neolithic,  while  the  ! 
present  dominant  third  man  goes  back  ' 
to  the  Indo-European  Aryan  pastoral 
peoples  who  built  cultures  beyond  , 
that  of  agricultural  man.  The  emerg- 


221 


ing  fourth  man  is  technological  man, 
Western  man,  the  man  of  the  future. 
But,  interestingly  enough,  this  new 
man  is  not  trapped  in  meaningless 
cycles ;  instead  he  builds  and  plans 
for  the  future — he  is  secular  man, 
communist  man,  scientific  man,  for 
whom  Christian  eschatology  has 
opened  up  the  future.  "Are  not  all 
the  'non-religious'  elements  of  West- 
ern civilization — modern  technology, 
science,  democracy,  capitalism,  social- 
ism, nationalism — which  have  thrust 
their  way  into  non-Western  countries 
and  been  welcomed  there,  among  the 
fruits  of  that  very  civilization  which 
was  formed  and  driven  forward  by 
the  dynamic  spirit  of  Christianity?" 
(p.  16) 

Although  van  Leeuwen  thinks  that 
this  fourth  man  is  totally  a  product 
of  Christian,  Western  civilization  (he 
never  quite  faces  the  question  as  to 
why  only  Western  Christianity  has 
produced  technology  except  to  weld 
it  to  the  Greek  tradition),  he  also 
holds  that  "technological  progress 
has  always  borne  the  mark  of  Cain," 
as  witness  the  atomic  bomb.  At  the 
same  time  and  paradoxically  he  points 
to  "the  inescapable  reality  of  the  fact 
that  the  Lord  goes  on  working  in 
history.  The  Gospel  is  preached  from 
Jerusalem  to  the  ends  of  the  earth ; 
world  history  is  en  route  from  Stone 
Age  to  Atomic  Era ;  in  and  through 
that  history  Christianity  moves  on." 
This  leads  him  to  assert  that  "one 
of  the  most  urgent  lines  of  Christian 
service  is  to  make  ready,  materially 
and  spiritually,  for  the  arrival  of  mod- 
ern civilization"  (p.  424).  Thus  it 
is  important  to  see  "that  Christian 
Church  has  a  sound  theology  of  se- 
cularization," and  he  adds  that  "what 
we  now  most  desperately  need  is  a 
clear  theology  of  'materialism',  a 
theology  of  wealth."  Clearly,  what- 
ever becomes  of  the  Church,  Chris- 
tianity will   go  marching  on. 

What  can  we  say  to  all  this?  Since 
biblical  support  is  claimed  for  this 
thesis  what  response  can  one  make 
on  a  biblical  basis?  Van  Leeuwen's 
historical    criticism    leaves    much    to 


be  desired.  Thus  he  assigns  Genesis 
1  to  the  Elohist  rather  than  to  the 
Priestly  source.  In  the  New  Testa- 
ment the  Book  of  Acts  is  utilized  as 
a  primary  source  for  Paul's  thought 
and  the  author's  theme  that  Chris- 
tianity must  be  spread  to  the  ends 
of  the  earth  is  predicated  on  Acts. 
The  use  of  the  symbolism  of  the 
Tower  of  Babel  is  fuzzy  and  incon- 
sistent since  he  uses  the  symbol  as 
one  of  idolatry,  yet  also  as  indicative 
of  the  creativity  of  the  "fourth  man" 
who  will,  willy  nilly,  carry  Chris- 
tianity with  him  as  he  constructs 
a  technological  Tower  of  Babel.  Why 
not  rather  contrast  to  the  Tower  of 
Babel  the  New  Jerusalem  of  John 
of  Patmos,  coming  down  out  of 
heaven  as  God's  victory  over  man's 
chaos   and  warfare? 

Because  of  the  inherent  optimism 
of  this  book  one  could  wish  that 
there  were  more  grappling  with  the 
ambiguities  of  history,  with  the  prob- 
lem of  theodicy,  with  the  condemna- 
tion by  both  Amos  and  Jesus  of  the 
ways  of  man  and  this  world.  Would 
that  in  his  fine  discussion  of  the 
glories  of  the  classical  age  of  Greece 
he  could  have  mentioned  that  it  was 
based  on  a  slave  economy ;  that  he 
had  not  assumed  that  to  quote  the 
Gospel  of  John  were  sufficient  to 
indicate  self-authenticating  truth ;  or 
that  an  almost  mechanical  conception 
of  the  necessity  of  the  Gospel  spread- 
ing to  the  ends  of  creation  were  not 
so  basic  to  his  thesis.  In  addition 
one  must  fault  the  analysis  for  almost 
ignoring  the  dualism  of  much  Indian 
thought,  and  for  the  narrow,  out- 
of-date  description  of  Confucius  as 
advocating  the  supremacy  of  a  heredi- 
tary nobility,  especially  since  it  is 
possible  that  proper  treatment  of 
those  subjects  might  have  been  an 
embarrassment  to  his  overall  thesis. 
At  the  same  time  there  are  several 
admirable  sections  on  the  role  of 
Islam  in  world  history,  especially 
vis-a-vis  Judaism  and  Christianity, 
and  there  is  a  fascinating  description 
of  Communism  as  "the  Islam  of  the 
technocratic  era." 


222 


We  are  very  much  in  the  author's 
debt  for  a  thorough  and  serious  study 
which  should  serve  as  the  basis  for 
continuing  creative  discussions  of  the 
role  of  Christianity  in  world  afifairs. 
His  emphasis  upon  religionless  Chris- 
tianity should  help  to  guide  some  of 
the  current  "death  of  God"  and  "post- 
Christian  era"  argumentation  into 
more  fruitful  channels.  We  are  con- 
fronted with  a  formidable  challenge 
to  many  of  our  unexamined  premises 
about  the  nature  and  significance  of 
Christianity  in  world  history.  We 
also  are  helped  in  the  reading  of  a 
demanding  book  by  H.  H.  Hoskins's 
excellent  translation,  as  well  as  by 
two   helpful    indexes. 

— David  G.  Bradley 
Department    of    Religion 

Theological     Ethics.     James     Sellers. 
Macmillan,    1966.    210    pp.    $5.95. 

This  is  one  of  the  few  books  I've 
read  through  (footnotes  tool)  at  one 
sitting;  and,  although  I  need  not  sug- 
gest that  posture  or  schedule,  I  do 
commend  this  volume  to  readers  of 
this  Review. 

It  is,  as  its  title  indicates,  a  book 
about  ethics — but  not  the  convention- 
al effort  to  reinterpret  (or  resur- 
rect!) an  archaic  approach  to  modern 
problems.  It  is,  instead,  a  fresh, 
stimulating,  sometimes  provocative, 
often  suggestive  attempt  to  provide 
a  systematic  frame  for  ethics  which 
takes  account  of  a  distinctively  Ameri- 
can and  twentieth-century  theological 
stance.  In  the  process,  James  Sellers 
debunks  (perhaps  entirely  uninten- 
tionally) a  number  of  popularly-held, 
and  sometimes  firmly-entrenched, 
myths ;  among  them  that  Christian 
ethics  is  mainly  a  how-to-do-it-prac- 
ticum,  that  laymen  are  lousy  theo- 
logians, and  that  Deans  are  professors 
gone  to  seed ! 

There  is  not  space  enough  here 
for  an  extended  review  of  this  book ; 
and  yet,  among  a  number  of  notable 
features,  the  treatments  of  faith, 
sanctification,  and  eschatology  de- 
serves   a    word    of    special    mention. 


however  brief.  All  three  of  these — 
but  especially  the  latter  two — have 
been  either  neglected  or  ignored  in 
large  measure  by  most  modern  moral- 
ists. They  are  discussed  in  this  book 
with  both  insight  and  feeling ;  and 
their  recovery  both  enriches  the  dis- 
cipline and  corrects  some  of  its  formu- 
lations. The  author's  suggested 
"stance"  of  "promise  and  fulfillment" 
is  less  successful,  I  think ;  and  he, 
like  many  others  of  us,  simply  begs 
the  question  of  natural  evil.  But 
these  are  relatively  minor  matters, 
and  the  book  deserves  serious  atten- 
tion by  those  of  us  concerned  to  re- 
late theology  to  action,  and  vice  ver- 
sa. 

When  I  reviewed  Dean  Sellers' 
The  South  and  Christian  Ethics,  I 
ventured  to  observe  that  it  failed  to 
deal  adequately  with  either  the  South 
or  Christian  ethics.  I  want  to  say 
that  Theological  Ethics  is  what  its 
title  advertises,  and  that  thoughtful 
pastors  and  churchman  owe  it  to 
themselves  (and  perhaps  a  wider 
audience!)   to  read  it. 

— Harmon  L.  Smith 

The  Layvian  in  Christian  History. 
Stephen  Charles  Neill  and  Hans- 
Ruedi  Weber,  editors.  Westminster. 
1963.  384  pp.  $7.50. 

"  'Never  before  in  church  history, 
since  its  initial  period,  has  the  role 
and  responsibility  of  the  laity  in 
Church  and  world  been  a  matter  of 
so  basic,  systematic,  comprehensive 
and  intensive  discussion  in  the  total 
oikoiimene  as  today.'  This  discussion 
'is  a  totally  new  phenomenon',  it  'im- 
plies a  new  examination  and  general 
reshaping  of  all  ecclesiologies  which 
we  have  had  for  centuries'  and  it 
'is  the  most  important  aspect  of  the 
longing  for  the  renewal  of  the  Church 
which  arises  in  the  Churches  all  over 
the  world'"  (p.  Z77).  Thus  editor 
Weljer,  former  missionary,  Executive 
Secretary  of  the  Department  of  the 
Laity,  World  Council  of  Churches, 
and  now  Associate  Director  of  the 
Ecumenical     Institute,     Bossey — quot- 


223 


ing  verteran  theologian  of  the  laity 
Hendrik  Kraemer.  It  may  surprise 
the  reader,  as  this  reviewer,  to  read 
Neill's  statement  that  this  may  be 
"the  first  general  survey  ever  made 
of  the  life  and  witness  of  the  lay 
membership  of  the  Church  of  Christ" 
(p.  11).  This  is  a  long  overdue 
notice  of  an  important  book  much 
needed  to  correct  our  preoccupation 
with  the  clergy  as  Church,  and  to 
provide  background  for  the  current 
rethinking  of  the   role  of  the   laity. 

The  composite  character  of  the 
book  virtually  defies  (and  has  so 
long  delayed)  a  brief  and  significant 
review.  Perhaps  a  bit  of  name- 
dropping  will  suffice.  Stephen  C.  Neill 
surely  is  well  known  to  our  readers, 
as  Angelican  missionary  bishop, 
ecumenical  theologian,  lately  Profes- 
sor of  Missions  at  the  University  of 
Hamburg.  As  an  editor,  he  contributes 
a  substantial  introduction  as  well  as 
a  later  chapter  on  the  laity  in  Britain, 
1600-1780.  Weber  is  authority  on  "The 
Younger  Churches"  and  "The  Re- 
discovery of  the  Laity  in  the  Ecumeni- 
cal Movement."  Other  familiar  names 
include  George  Hunston  Williams  of 
Harvard,  E.  Gordon  Rupp  of  Man- 
chester, Martin  Schmidt  of  Mainz 
(a  Lutheran  authority  on  Wesley), 
Franklin  H.  Littell  (on  "The  Radi- 
cal Reformation"),  and  Howard 
Grimes  (on  the  laity  in  this  country). 
Others  offer  informative  treatments 
of  "The  Orthodox  World,"  "The 
Roman  Catholic  Church,"  and  "The 
Laity  in  the  Latin  American  Evan- 
gelical Churches,  1806-1961."  These 
and  other  chapters  vary  in  format, 
focus,  categories,  mode  of  treatment, 
and  quality  of  contribution,  but  a 
more  coherent  and  uniform  develop- 
ment by  a  single  author  might  not 
afiford  so  rich  a  content.  It  is  sober- 
ing to  realize  how  little  we  have 
known  about  most  of  the  People  of 
God! 

— McMuRRY    S.    RiCHEY 

The  Social  Gospel  in  America,  1870- 
1920:  Gladden,  Ely,  Rauschenbusch. 
(A  Library  of  Protestant  Thought). 


Edited   by    Robert   T.    Handy.    Ox- 
ford University  Press,  1966.  399  pp. 

$7.00. 

One  cannot  get  at  the  heart  of  the 
social-gospel  movement  in  America 
without  an  acquaintance  with  the  con- 
tributions made  to  it  by  Washington 
Gladden  (1836-1918),  Richard  T. 
Ely  (1854-1943),  and  Walter  Raus- 
chenbusch (1861-1918)  ;  and  the  editor 
of  this  magnificant  volume  has  sup- 
plied the  most  appropriate  source 
readings  for  this  purpose.  In  addition 
to  an  over-all  introduction  to  the 
period  as  a  whole,  there  are  three 
biographical  essays  as  well  as  brief 
introductions  to  the  several  docu- 
ments. While  all  three  of  the  bio- 
graphical essays  are  good,  the  one 
on  Ely  is,  I  venture  to  say,  unexcelled 
by  any  other  short  introduction  to 
that  author's  social  thought. 

Professor  Handy  has  wisely  re- 
produced, as  a  rule,  the  less  well 
known  writings  of  his  subjects, 
especially  where  the  major  books  are 
still  in  print  or  else  generally  available. 
But  he  has  not  followed  this  principle 
at  a  sacrifice  of  the  dominant  social 
views  of  these  men ;  for  indeed  many 
of  the  pieces  here  reprinted  give  the 
gist  of  their  thinking  more  clearly 
than  is  the  case  in  their  better  known 
books. 

Although  three  authors  are  repre- 
sented, the  book  reveals  a  remarkable 
unity  from  the  standpoint  of  social 
principles  and  theological  premises. 
All  three,  for  one  thing,  concentrated 
upon  questions,  such  as  capital  and 
labor,  which  were  raised  mainly  by 
the  industrial  revolution ;  and  their 
proposed  solutions  were  much  alike. 
All  three,  again,  fell  close  together 
in  their  belief  that  doctrinaire  social- 
ism was  not  an  adequate  answer  to 
the  economic  predicament  arising  out 
of  rigid  laissez  faire  economics.  They 
saw  more  hope  in  a  mixed  economy, 
in  which  as  much  as  possible  would 
be  left  to  private  enterprise  and  only 
certain  naturally  monopolistic  enter- 
prises would  be  collectively  owned. 
An    economic    democracy    was    their 


224 


ideal.  On  the  negative  side,  they  also 
had  much  in  common  in  that  none 
of  them  gave  much  attention  to  the 
tragic  social  and  economic  plight  of 
the  post-bellum  Negro.  Once  again, 
in  so  far  as  they  were  at  all  theo- 
logically concerned,  they  were  most 
at  home  in  Protestant  liberalism. 
Finally,  all  three  were  avowedly 
evangelical  churchmen,  with  a  firm 
conviction  that  the  gospel  of  Christ 
was  the  final  hope  for  individual  and 
social    salvation. 

Professor  Handy  is  at  his  best  in 
exploring  the  social  aspects  of  Ameri- 
can religion,  a  fact  which  leads  the 
reviewer  to  hope  that  he  will  eventu- 
ally give  a  full-length  treatment  of 
the  subject,  beginning  at  least  as 
early  as  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth 
century.  University  and  seminary 
teachers  are  greatly  in  need  of  such 
a  book,  and  Professor  Handy  is  ex- 
ceptionally well  qualified  to  produce 
it. 

— H.  Shelton  Smith 

A  Defense  of  Theological  Ethics.   G. 
F.  Woods.  Cambrige.  1966.  136  pp. 

$3.95. 

Probably  because  in  recent  years 
ethicists  have  generally  been  preoc- 
cupied with  the  broad  interests  of 
"social"  ethics,  there  is  beginning  to 
appear  (by  way  of  compensation?) 
a  number  of  books  devoted  to  "theo- 
logical" ethics.  This  small  volume  of 
six  chapters,  The  Hulsean  Lectures 
at  Cambridge  for  1964,  was  written 
by  the  Professor  of  Divinity  at  the 
University   of   London. 

The  burden  of  this  book  is  to 
show  that  those  who  accept  moral 
standards   and   take   seriously   respon- 


sible conduct  will  find  a  more  reason- 
able and  adequate  ground  in  Christian 
theism  than  in  secular  humanism. 
This  in  itself  is  unquestionably  a 
laudable  aim,  and  especially  so  in  a 
time  when  heteronomy  in  ethics  is 
being  encouraged  in  both  professional 
and   poplar   literature. 

The  immediate  threat  to  which 
Professor  Woods  addresses  himself  is 
from  the  quarter  of  secular  humanism, 
a  philosophy  which  he  believes  has 
a  high  sense  of  moral  responsibility 
but  no  commitment  to  God  or  per- 
sonal immortality.  He  therefore  de- 
votes his  energies  to  showing  the 
unreasonableness,  and  hence  inade- 
quacy, of  such  a  view  and  (sub- 
ordinately)  the  rational  necessity  for 
an  alternative  in  Christian  theism. 
This  effort,  one  thinks,  does  not 
really  fulfill  the  book's  stated  aim 
partly  because  theism  and  personal 
immortality  alone  are  not  the  urgent 
questions  for  the  secular  humanist, 
but  more  specifically  because  the 
omission  of  any  serious  or  systematic 
attention  to  the  doctrine  of  Incarna- 
tion leaves  Professor  Woods  to  answer 
the  deficiencies  of  a  philosophy  with 
concepts  limited  by  those  same  de- 
ficiencies. We  surely  need  an  apologia 
to  the  secular  humanist,  but  this  is 
a  viable  possibility  only  if  the  cate- 
gory of  Incarnation  is  introduced  and 
gives  thereby  to  this  serious  moral 
philosophy  what  it  otherwise  lacks, 
namely,  a  purposiveness  capable  of 
transcending  the  limitations  of  tem- 
poral immediacy.  A  Defense  of  Theo- 
logical Ethics  is  a  step  in  the  right 
direction,  but  still  some  distance  from 
its  stated  destination. 

— Harmon  L.  Smith